Psalm 24 – Gates of Heaven

TEXT

1. Of David. A psalm.

The LORD’s is the earth and everything therein, the world and its inhabitants,
2. for He founded it upon the seas, set it upon the nether-streams.

3. Who may ascend the mountain of the LORD? Who may stand in His holy place?
4. He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who has not 1-taken My person-1 to what is false or sworn deceitfully.
5. He shall take away a blessing from the LORD, a just reward from the God of his salvation.
6. Such is the generation of those who search for Him, who seek Your presence, O Jacob.2      Selah.

7. Take up your heads, O gates, and be taken up, everlasting doorways, that the King of glory may come in!
8. Who is this King of glory? The LORD strong and mighty, the LORD mighty in battle.
9. Take up your heads, O gates, and take up, everlasting doorways, that the King of glory may come in!
10. Who is this King of glory? The LORD of hosts, He is the King of glory!      Selah.

Notes
1. “Take My person” indices making a false oath. Cf. Exodus 20:7. Many Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions read “His” [or ‘his’] person.” The word here and subsequently translated “take” is usually translated lift.
2. Implies either “God of Jacob” or address to people of Jacob.



COMMENTARY

Societies occasionally generate documents of core affirmations. Psalm 24 may be such a declaration.

Basic Challenges

Even a cursory reading of Psalm 24 reveals three radically different sections (1–2, 3–6, 7–10). As expected, we hear the immediate voices of the dividers: According to Alter, “Scholarly consensus [is that verses 7–10 are]… an originally separate poem.” However, in fact, there is no such consensus, and there are signs of unity within the poem, as follows. There is a possible enclosure (“He,” for the LORD, verses 2 and 9). The first and second sections are tightly bound by repetitions of “Who” in both, and the frequent repetition (six times) of “take”(n-s-’ ). Moreover, there is a clear progression of “doubling” in the psalm: at first, isolated instances (root, word, or sound), which quickly builds to multiple repetitions, to phrases, and then to a whole sentence. Were this music, it would move from pianissimo to fortissimo in ten short sentences. This too indicates planned unity.

In terms of unified readings, I also note how the Malbim reads the first two verses. He sees the first half of each as referring to God-and-the-universe and the second to God-and-humans. (He understands "nether-streams" as “rivers,” i.e., that which allows man to build settlements.) This would indicate that these two verses introduce the two subjects that follow: the ideal person (section 2) and God-and-the world (approaching the eternal entrances, section 3).

As a unit, however, the psalm presents striking challenges, not only in the relationship among the parts, but particularly in the highly picturesque imagery of the third section. There are terms that appear only here in the Bible: “the King of Glory” and “the everlasting openings.” The personification is extreme―gates and doorways are addressed, speak, and act. The physical image is not at all clear―the eternal doorways (not quite “doors,” but rather the entrance opening) being “taken up,” the gates taking up their “heads.” What is being entered? The interpretation of this section will determine the interpretation of the psalm.

I present below two overviews for the reader’s consideration. First, I describe one version of a widespread interpretation of the psalm, as a text for processional entrance into the earthly Temple, with that theory’s principal underpinnings. Following a list of reservations, I suggest an alternative interpretation (which also has weaknesses). Following those sections, I return to the second section of the poem—the description of the ideal person.

The Ark Returns to the Temple

The widely accepted approach to the third section of Psalm 24 is that it poetically describes the return of the Ark of the Lord (depicted as the return of God Himself) to the Temple in Jerusalem, perhaps originally written after a battle. Among the outstanding supports for this approach are the fact that the Ark at one time did go out into the field of battle (see I Sam. 4), that the “Ark” is connected to the term “glory” in several contexts, that the imagery befits a procession, that the military imagery befits a battle, and that it would make sense as a parallel to the second section (which is the ascension of man to the Temple). The highly poetic terminology is necessitated by “seeing” what is inherently not seen, and the text befits an antiphonal choir presentation, taking roles for the pageant. The poem gains its unity from the parallel human and divine approaches to the Temple in the second and third sections.

Since the ark evidently ceased to go out to battle very early in Israel’s history (II Sam. 15:24–29), the psalm (at least the third section) is thought to have been written early (though the highly figurative language would allow its use in liturgy afterward). Alternatively, some consider that the origin is not a battle, but rather an incident in the life of one of Israel’s first kings, either David bringing the Ark to Jerusalem or Solomon on completing the building of the Temple. The early date would also help relieve any reservation one had about the physical idea that God accompanied the Ark, since this would be attributed to a very early stage in the development of the Israelite religion.

Often this theory is supplemented by the understanding that the psalm was recited in three separate stages (subsequent to its first use) at an envisioned annual festival when the Ark was brought forward: the first section while pilgrims approached Jerusalem (a reconfirmation that God owns the earth), the second right outside the city (who may enter here?), and the third at the ceremony itself.

As attractive as this theory may be, one must note some reservations and difficulties. First, it presumes many ceremonies or practices of which we have no independent confirmation whatsoever: the Ark entrance ceremony, a psalm recited in three parts at three times, choirs personifying inanimate objects, etc. In short, the theory “fits” because it evolved from the psalm. Second, if the gates are those of the city, lifting up their heads makes little sense (the gates opened out or in) and if the “heads” mean the constructed part above, the poem is reduced to the claim “God is too tall,” which certainly does not measure up to the grandeur of the section. Third, the term “eternal doorways” is problematic because “eternal” is never applied to the standing Temple (see "Additional Notes"). Fourth, the personification is extreme if these are the physical gates. Fifth, for those who go so far as to read the second section as a test for admission (i.e., not just an admonition), there is no record of such a practice. In fact, all who were not physically impure were welcome in the Temple. Sixth, “glory” is associated with God in several contexts (Ps. 104:31: “May the glory of God endure forever”), so its use does not require reference to the Ark. Finally, while the theory unites the second and third sections, the connection to the introduction is tenuous at best.

Biblical Metaphysics

Reducing the implication of “metaphysics” to “first principles,” I suggest that Psalm 24 is a presentation of biblical metaphysics, the poet’s attempt to articulate the first principles that underlie the national worldview, as follows.

According to this understanding, the third section does not describe earthly Jerusalem or the Ark or the Temple, but rather God’s celestial home. [Echoes of God having such a home are found throughout the Bible, such as “Look down from Your holy abode, from heaven” (Dt. 26:15), and “Look down from heaven and see, from Your holy and glorious height’ (Is. 63:15). The prophets report a number of visions of God there, and He acts from there (Ps. 14:2: “The LORD looks down from heaven”). As the end of Isaiah cites God: “The heaven is my throne, the earth my footstool’ (66:1).] The description would be heavenly and the use of “gates” and “doorways” metaphoric (but not so the term “everlasting,” which would be literal). The description befits some of the prophetic, exaggerated, and metaphoric heavenly descriptions, such as Ezekiel 3:12, “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from His (or ‘its’) place.”

In short, parallel to ethical man entering God’s Temple in the second section, the LORD enters His own residence in the third.

The connection to the second section, however, is more than mere parallelism. The descriptions of the LORD in the third section indicate that He is the mighty, valiant hero of war, the LORD of hosts. The human and divine would thus seem to “meet” in parallel universes, and the message is that the Creator (section 1) and the Source of Power (section 3, as per the terms used) is the ultimate support in battle precisely for that human being described in the second section; it is he, not some self-styled hero, who has the ultimate backing of the LORD. (Thus in section 2 the human “goes up” and in section 3 the LORD “comes,” two terms that appear, on occasion, as a pair, e.g., Ex. 7:8; I Kings 1:35.)

I also conjecture (no more than that, since the linguistic basis is weak) that perhaps after reading the third section, the reader is asked to reconsider the possibility that the terms of the second section, which by all common biblical usage imply the earthly Temple, imply in addition God’s abode above.

The three sections fit well: the first recalling the basic truth of Creation and introducing (as above) both the human and divine elements; the second defining the human ideal; and the third a parallel entrance, sealing the connection. In fact the last word thus becomes a connecting word play, “hosts” taking on three references parallel to the three sections: the hosts of heaven as in Creation, the hosts of Israel as in the masses coming to the Temple, and the army hosts of war.

The psalmist presents, but does not challenge, this metaphysical understanding (God is Creator, God is Power, and God supports the righteous individual). That is left for other contexts, or perhaps to the reader.

The Ideal Person

In any case, the second section needs some further explanation. Many interpreters note an encompassing tone to the description: mind, heart, and action. The field of play is human ethics, and notably missing are matters of ritual or belief.

Jacob Bazak ("Daily") has offered a different analysis of the second section, which I summarize. “Who has not taken a false oath” is the usual interpretation of verse 4 (see note), but Bazak points out that honesty in oaths was such a basic underpinning of society that it is unreasonable to assume that simple fealty to one’s oath would be a criterion of special holiness. He therefore interprets verse 4 to mean: “Who does not lust after falseness” (i.e., false rumors). The next phrase “sworn deceitfully” is subject to the same objection, and he offers the following understanding: “who has sworn (to say) ‘No’ to deceit.” These interpretations make the verse a close parallel to another psalm’s prescribed ideal, Psalm 34:14: “Guard your tongue from evil and your lips from deceitful speech.” The section would then open with general descriptions of righteousness in thought, speech, and deed and continue with two outstanding details of ethical behavior.

In any case, whether the reference in verse 4 is to honesty (as per Bazak) or to false oaths, the person epitomizes purity and righteousness. As in similar attempts to define the ideal person in Psalms (15; 34:13–15 and cf. Isaiah 33:14–16), it is the ethical ideal that is primary. This is the person God wishes to “meet” (in one sanctuary or the other). The import for understanding biblical priorities is enormous.

* * * * * * * * *

Additional Notes

“Jacob,” verse 6, is variously understood as God of Jacob (so the Septuagint reads), or an address to the people, “O Jacob.” (Israel, Jacob’s other name, is more often used for the people.) Either may be correct.

“Eternal” (7, 9) is used in the Bible to describe aspects of the world (even physical), God’s gifts to the people of Israel, God’s qualities, etc., but the term is never applied to the existing Temple. The closest one gets is one description of eternal Jerusalem, in I Chr.23:25, a very late verse put into David’s mouth. In terms of the Temple itself, Ezekiel does foresee that the future rebuilt Temple will be “forever” (37:28; 43:7, 9). One should also recall Jeremiah’s condemnation of those who felt that God’s Temple could not be destroyed (Jeremiah 7:3–15). In short, there is ample reason to believe that the psalmist would not have used "eternal" had the reference been to the earthly Temple . (Note that those who do believe that the earthly Temple is the reference in Psalm 24, usually adopt the more limited, but possible, translation, “ancient” doorways.)


The author of these essays is Rabbi Benjamin Segal, former president of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem and author of The Song of Songs: A Woman in Love (Jerusalem: Gefen, 2009). This material is copyright by the author, and may not be reproduced. If you are interested in using the texts for study groups, please be in direct contact with the author, at psalmblog@gmail.com.

HEBREW TEXT

א לְדָוִד מִזְמוֹר

לַיהוָה הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ תֵּבֵל וְיֹשְׁבֵי בָהּ

ב כִּי-הוּא עַל-יַמִּים יְסָדָהּ וְעַל-נְהָרוֹת יְכוֹנְנֶהָ

ג מִי-יַעֲלֶה בְהַר-יְהוָה וּמִי-יָקוּם בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ

ד נְקִי כַפַּיִם וּבַר-לֵבָב אֲשֶׁר לֹא-נָשָׂא לַשָּׁוְא נַפְשִׁי וְלֹא נִשְׁבַּע לְמִרְמָה

ה יִשָּׂא בְרָכָה מֵאֵת יְהוָה וּצְדָקָה מֵאֱלֹהֵי יִשְׁעוֹ

ו זֶה דּוֹר דֹּרְשָׁו מְבַקְשֵׁי פָנֶיךָ יַעֲקֹב סֶלָה

ז שְׂאוּ שְׁעָרִים רָאשֵׁיכֶם וְהִנָּשְׂאוּ פִּתְחֵי עוֹלָם וְיָבוֹא מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד

ח מִי זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד יְהוָה עִזּוּז וְגִבּוֹר יְהוָה גִּבּוֹר מִלְחָמָה

ט שְׂאוּ שְׁעָרִים רָאשֵׁיכֶם וּשְׂאוּ פִּתְחֵי עוֹלָם וְיָבֹא מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד

י מִי הוּא זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת הוּא מֶלֶךְ הַכָּבוֹד סֶלָה