Bible Commentary - Psalms 24

This psalm defies my standard interpretations.  I feel like I’ve been saying that a lot recently.  In my introduction, I mentioned that the psalms are very diverse or heterogeneous.  Every time I am challenged to generalize a particular psalm, that is another data point showing the extensive variety of themes and structures in the book of Psalms.

Taking this psalm by its first verse, it would seem that this is a psalm of praise.  “The earth is the LORD’s, and all that is within it”.  However, in this case it defies standard convention because almost the entirety of the rest of this psalm is not really a praise psalm.

Instead, it splits into three parts.  The first part is the introduction in verses 1-2.  The second part in verses 3-6 is a description of the righteous.  This is reminiscent of Psalm 15 which started with a very similar question: “Who may dwell on your holy hill?” (Psalm 15:1).  In this case, verse 3 asks “Who may stand in his holy place?”  Both Psalm 15 and verses 3-6 here answer the question by describing the characteristics of the righteous person.

The third part in verses 7-10 breaks off in a completely different direction, prophesying the entrance of God into … somewhere.  That the gates and “ancient doors” should be opened up that God may enter.  It doesn’t say where, but we can reasonably guess it’s referring to either the temple or Jerusalem.  My inclination is to say it’s the temple, since that was the subject of verse 3, but it’s not a sure thing.

There are many questions for which I can offer few answers.  The first question is why these three pieces are tied together in the same psalm?  The second question is why verses 7-10 use a repeating structure with a recurring phrase “king of glory”.  The third question is to look for meaningful differences between verses 3-6 and Psalm 15.  I will try to address these questions as best as I can, in order.

First, why are these three parts in the same psalm?  To be honest, I have no idea.  In situations like this I typically look to other commentaries to enlighten my confusion, but Rashi says nothing and the NIV commentary does not offer much insight into the particular structure of this psalm or why these ideas are combined in this way.  One thing I noticed while reading the NIV commentary is that both the second and third section contain the idea of “entering”.  The second part describes the righteous people who can ascend the hill of God and enter the temple.  The third part is a triumphant announcement of God’s entry into the city (or temple).  That is one possible connection.  I don’t see how either part is associated with God’s lordship over the world in verses 1-2, however.

The NIV commentary also mentioned that this psalm was plausibly composed when David returned the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, or as a commemoration of that event (see 2 Samuel 6).  This is a bit speculative because the psalm does not itself mention the ark, only “the king of glory”.  The triumphal entry in this psalm certainly reminds us of David and the ark, though.

For the second question, I would guess this is as least partly musical; remember that this was originally a song.  In addition, the repeated phrase “king of glory” highlights the celebratory nature of the psalm.  God is the “king of glory” because he is exalted, honored, praised, etc.  I think it’s mostly musical though, because these are like choruses that would be repeated over and over.  In modern music, Handel’s Messiah has a beautiful chorus based on this psalm, which sounds very much like how I imagine this psalm was originally intended.

For the third question, verses 3-6 and Psalm 15 are both mostly similar.  One minor difference is that Psalm 15 places a strong emphasis on honesty and integrity in both our words and our business dealings.  Verses 3-6, in contrast, mentioned integrity at the end of verse 4 (“and has not sworn deceitfully”), but it is much less of a focus.  Instead, verses 3-6 seem to pay the most attention to the concept of purity.

“Clean hands and a pure heart” use the language of purity and cleanliness, but the meaning is relatively similar to Psalm 15.  “Clean hands” means that one has not committed any crimes, that one’s hands are “innocent” in some sense.  “A pure heart” means that one’s thoughts and intentions are good, pure and innocent.

The phrase taken as a whole means that a righteous person should be innocent in both thought and deed.  Psalm 15, in contrast, says that a righteous person should have integrity in what they say and what they do.  In conclusion, these are two subtly different ways of saying what amounts to roughly the same thing.  As a righteous person, one is expected to be honest, pure and innocent in both thought, word and action.  It’s not enough to be honest in your dealings if you lie and slander, and it’s not enough to be honest in your words if your thoughts and intentions (your “heart”) are bad.  You must have honest and good intentions, honest and good words, and honest and righteous deeds.

Finally, I want my readers to think about the placement of this psalm after Psalms 22 and 23.  If we look at them broadly, Psalm 22 is a desperate cry for help, which ends in praise but begins in despair.  Psalm 23 is a very quiet psalm, confident in God’s salvation.  Psalm 24 is much more boisterous, with a joyful declaration of God’s imminent entry into Jerusalem and/or the temple.

Psalm 23 ends with “I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever” (Psalm 23:6), and Psalm 24 begins by asking “Who may ascend the hill of the LORD?”  From this point of view, Psalm 24 continues from the exact place Psalm 23 left off.  Furthermore, if we look at these three psalms together, Psalm 22 is like the beginning of a prayer psalm with its “problem statement”, and Psalms 23 and 24 feel like the declaration of God’s help and the resulting praise and thanksgiving.

I would try to take this further but the connection is not that strong.  I would describe this as a “general sense” that the psalms may be tied together in this way, but it’s not conclusive and I could potentially be over-interpreting the situation.  I will leave further analysis as an exercise for my readers, because it exceeds my capabilities.