Theology for the Masses

Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture

 

Who is this King of Glory? Concluding Thoughts on Ps. 24

Posted on December 10th, 2009 by tom

Yahweh has been acknowledged as the universal sovereign over all creation in verse 1-2, an unambiguously kingship oriented statement. Now, His title as “king” is officially announced. Again, His kingship cannot be separated from His having founded the world upon the sea. Creation and kingship belong together. Furthermore, the general setting in this final section belongs to the return of the Ark from war – the return of God’s presence to Jerusalem.

The final section begins with two imperatival statements, the first commanding the anthropomorphized gates to lift up their heads and the second commanding anthropomorphized ancient doors to be lifted up.[1] This call to lift up and be lifted up reminds the reader again of Yahweh’s mighty acts in creation by reflecting Baal’s words to other deities prior to defeating Yam, “Lift up your heads, O gods.”[2] Here, it is not pagan deities, but the gates and doors of the temple which respond to Yahweh’s return from battling the forces of chaos (vs. 2). The gates and doors are anthropomorphized so that they become persons who are capable of response to Yahweh’s approach, “courtiers awaiting the return of the Divine Warrior.”[3]  Their response is a repeated inquiry, “Who is He, this King of Glory?”

The answer to the question of the gates and doors is that zWZæ[i hw"hy> is the King of Glory. The identification of their deity with kingship is not uniquely Israelite. No, “the conception and designation of the deity as King are primitive Semitic practice, of which incontestable evidence is afforded by the large number of personal names compounded by melek going back to the most ancient period.”[4]

That said, the title “King of Glory” is entirely unique within the Old Testament, but we can be sure that, assuming an exilic composition, this title would have been quite subversive.[5] To proclaim Yahweh’s kingship in the midst of exile would be to call into question the claims of authority and sovereignty of mere earthly rulers, who themselves were viewed as deities. “As long as Yahweh is kin, his faithful followers can live under the human rulership of any number of foreign monarchs and still maintain their loyalty and allegiance to the one true king, Yahweh.”[6]

The answer to the question is the identity of Yahweh as the zWZæ[i hw"hy. The idea here is that Yahweh is a divine warrior who has, by virtue of his victories, maintained his kingship. The title “LORD of Hosts” is “the throne name of Israel’s God (Is. 6:5)…and refers to the hosts who surround the LORD’s heavenly throne and who praise and consult him and carry out his decisions as sovereign over the world.”[7] The name was associated with the Ark, which was identified as the throne of Yahweh, and which has been connected by the author to Yahweh’s activities in creation.  

CONCLUSION

I have demonstrated here that, though the kingship metaphor of Yahweh plays such an integral part of this psalm, it is subsumed under the idea of Yahweh as creator. The first two verses are particularized in both of the following sections and provides the foundation for His worship and His kingship. In the end, however, I do not intend to draw a sharp disconnect between the elements (even though the structure and flow of the psalm could arguably suggest such a disconnect). Rather, it is important to see the entirety of the psalm and its claims as a whole. Creation, holiness, and kingship are intimately tied together in this psalm. Each of them informs the other and demonstrates the universal sovereignty of Yahweh and His moral claims on the world.


[1] Both of the words have the same root, which occurred earlier in verses 4 and 5.  The first of  afn in this verse 7 is a standard, active Qal, but the second is a passive Niphal. This seems to have no significance beyond poetic variation.

 

[2] Cragie, 214. The LXX is slightly different, calling for the princes to lift up their heads: a;rate pu,laj oi` a;rcontej u`mw/n.

[3] Richard J. Clifford, Psalms 1-72. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2002), 136.

[4] Eichrodt, 194.

[5] Even in a pre-exilic setting, the title still relativizes all claims to power by any earthly ruler, especially Israelite ones, who were prone to think to highly of themselves and forget Yahweh.

[6] Wilson, 454.

[7] Mays, 123.

  • thefuerstshallbelast
    I am also concerned about how the original readers might have read the text. I think that always needs to be in our minds so as not to abuse the text.

    That said, the NT seems not at all concerned with the historical/sitz em leben types of questions. The psalms, in particular, by their very nature lend a helping hand in being lifted out of their original context to be made applicable to other situations. That's the nature of the poetic genre...especially performative poetry. Which is exactly why they were so powerful for hundreds of years in Israelite liturgy - they were capable of being adapted to different situations.

    Thoughts?
  • hundiejo
    I agree that the Psalms are perhaps the most portable of Biblical passages with the exception of the Proverbs. And we do know that the NT writers were not all that concerned with context and were constantly infusing Christology into the Psalms and other OT passages.

    So, my thoughts are merely those of agreement, which is why we probably don't comment much!
  • hundiejo
    Good answer. Especially when it comes to the Psalms, structure is important, I agree completely. I share your desire and concerns on your second point as well. I am pretty wary of reading the Psalms in lieu of Christ because I have seen their context and structure abused beyond belief in making everything about Christ. I am probably a bit behind you in being able to guard against it. Right now with the Old Testament I'm trying to read it as a 2nd temple Jew would have read it so that in a few years I can reread it with the climax in mind.
  • thefuerstshallbelast
    Good question. First, I think we need to pay more attention to how a given Psalm is structured. As I argued in my original (of th more exegetical as opposed to devotional) post, I think the structure of this psalm 1. helps us make sense of how the pieces fit together, and 2. helps us get at the controling thought.

    For myself, I think I'd like to grow in the area of reading the Psalms with a more Christo-centric view. If I truly believe in the inspiration of Scripture, then I need to take both the entire Canon seriously as a whole AND the individual passages. I believe the historical critic in my wants to examine each book in light of itself (which is immensley important), but sometimes this means I neglect seeing (especially OT texts) in light of the climax of Scripture: the Advent of Jesus, cross, resurrection, and new creation. Make sense?
  • hundiejo
    I have enjoyed reading you processing this Psalm. How has working on it developed your method of interpretation, or if it hasn't, what lessons can we learn about reading and interpreting Psalms would you have us keep in mind?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Bad Behavior has blocked 71 access attempts in the last 7 days.

 
 
 

Copyright © 2009 Theology for the Masses. Theme by THAT Agency powered by WordPress.