Psalm 118:24 — How This Verse Has Been Interpreted

The Verse

Text (KJV): "This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it."

Immediate context: Psalm 118 is a liturgical thanksgiving psalm, likely used in temple worship. Verse 24 appears near the conclusion of the psalm, following declarations of deliverance (vv. 5-21) and the "stone the builders rejected" passage (v. 22). The speaker shifts from individual testimony to corporate proclamation. The verse functions as a ritual declaration, probably spoken by a priest or worship leader, with the congregation responding. Its position between messianic imagery (v. 22-23) and hosanna liturgy (v. 25-26) creates interpretive tension about whether "the day" refers to a specific historical moment, a liturgical present, or an eschatological future.

Interpretive Fault Lines

1. Temporal Reference: Specific Event vs. Any Day

Pole A (Specific Event): "The day" denotes a particular historical or eschatological moment—Israel's deliverance from Egypt, return from exile, or the messianic age.
Pole B (Any Day): "The day" means the liturgical present, whatever day worship occurs, or generically "each day" God gives.

Why the split exists: Hebrew "yom" can mean a specific 24-hour period, a season, or a generic "time." The demonstrative "this" (zeh) can point to an immediate present or a known referent. No temporal marker in the verse clarifies which.

What hangs on it: If specific, the verse becomes a declaration about redemptive history with messianic overtones. If generic, it becomes wisdom about daily gratitude. The former ties interpretation to Christology; the latter to spirituality.

2. Divine Action: Ontological Creation vs. Providential Arrangement

Pole A (Ontological Creation): God "made" the day in the sense of Genesis 1—creating time itself, establishing the cosmic order.
Pole B (Providential Arrangement): God "made" the day by orchestrating events within it—bringing about deliverance, arranging circumstances.

Why the split exists: The verb "asah" (עָשָׂה) covers both creating ex nihilo and fashioning/arranging. Context determines meaning. Psalm 118's focus on deliverance suggests providential acts, but the cosmic imagery in v. 22-23 ("the LORD's doing... marvelous in our eyes") invites creational reading.

What hangs on it: Ontological reading makes this about God's sovereignty over time itself. Providential reading makes it about God's intervention in history. The former is universalist (all days are God's); the latter is particularist (this day is special because of what God did in it).

3. Human Response: Corporate Liturgy vs. Individual Resolve

Pole A (Corporate Liturgy): "We will rejoice" is a liturgical formula spoken collectively in worship, not a volitional decision.
Pole B (Individual Resolve): "We will rejoice" is a personal commitment to choose joy despite circumstances.

Why the split exists: The Hebrew cohortative "נָגִילָה וְנִשְׂמְחָה" can express either liturgical intention ("let us rejoice") or determined will ("we will rejoice"). Temple setting suggests liturgy; wisdom parallels suggest volition.

What hangs on it: Liturgical reading embeds the verse in communal ritual; individual reading makes it about personal attitude. Modern evangelical usage leans individual; historical-critical scholarship leans liturgical.

4. Emotional Scope: Imperative Joy vs. Declarative Joy

Pole A (Imperative): The cohortative functions as exhortation—the community resolves to rejoice, making it an act of obedience or discipline.
Pole B (Declarative): The cohortative expresses spontaneous, inevitable response—joy is the natural reaction to recognizing God's work.

Why the split exists: Cohortative mood in Hebrew expresses both exhortation and intention. Verse 24 lacks an explicit command structure, but its liturgical context could imply communal exhortation.

What hangs on it: Imperative reading makes rejoicing an act of will, potentially duty. Declarative reading makes it organic response, potentially emotion. This affects whether the verse prescribes or describes.

The Core Tension

The central question is whether Psalm 118:24 speaks of a unique redemptive moment that warrants perpetual commemoration, or whether it models a posture toward every ordinary day. Competing readings survive because the verse's demonstrative "this" and verb "made" remain grammatically ambiguous, the psalm's liturgical use creates distance from any single historical referent, and Christian appropriation of v. 22 (the rejected stone) as messianic prophecy creates pressure to read v. 24 eschatologically. For one reading to definitively win, we would need external evidence specifying which historical event (if any) the psalm originally celebrated, clear grammatical signals distinguishing liturgical formula from wisdom maxim, or canonical context unambiguously linking v. 24 to v. 22's messianic imagery. None exists. The verse's survival in both festival liturgies and daily devotion perpetuates the ambiguity.

Key Terms & Translation Fractures

"yom" (יוֹם) — "day"

Semantic range: 24-hour period, daylight hours, indefinite time, appointed time, eschatological "day of the LORD."

Translation options:

"This is the day" (KJV, ESV, NIV) — preserves ambiguity, allows both specific and generic readings.
"This is the day that" (some liturgical versions) — emphasizes defining relative clause.

Interpretive impact: Specific-event readings emphasize "day" as appointed time (cf. "day of the LORD" in prophets). Generic readings emphasize daily present. Christian tradition favoring "the day" (definite article) as Easter Sunday relies on specific-event reading.

"asah" (עָשָׂה) — "made/has made"

Semantic range: make, do, create, fashion, bring about, accomplish.

Translation options:

"has made" (KJV, ESV) — completed action, emphasizes result.
"made" (NIV) — simple past, neutral on completion.
"brought about" (some paraphrases) — emphasizes providential arrangement over creation.

Interpretive impact: "Made" in Genesis 1 context invites ontological reading (God creates days). "Made" in historical psalms (e.g., Psalm 98) invites providential reading (God brought about events in a day). Jewish interpretation generally favors providential; Reformed readings favor ontological sovereignty.

"nagilah" (נָגִילָה) — "we will rejoice"

Grammatical form: Qal cohortative, first-person plural.

Translation options:

"we will rejoice" (KJV, NIV) — volitional future, suggests resolve.
"let us rejoice" (ESV, NRSV) — exhortative, suggests liturgical invitation.
"let us be glad" (some versions) — softens to generic positivity.

Interpretive impact: "We will" emphasizes personal/corporate commitment. "Let us" emphasizes liturgical exhortation. Hebrew cohortative allows both. Jewish liturgy uses this phrase as communal invitation; Christian devotional use emphasizes individual will.

What remains genuinely ambiguous: Whether "the day" points backward (deliverance past), downward (liturgical present), or forward (messianic future). The grammar supports all three. No contextual signal definitively resolves it.

Competing Readings

Reading 1: The Exodus Commemoration Reading

Claim: "The day" refers to Israel's deliverance from Egypt, liturgically re-presented in Passover or Sukkot.

Key proponents: Medieval Jewish commentators (Rashi connects Psalm 118 to Hallel psalms sung at Passover); some historical-critical scholars (Hermann Gunkel's form-critical analysis places Psalm 118 in festival liturgy).

Emphasizes: Temple liturgy, historical salvation, communal memory. "Made" as God's redemptive act in history (Exodus 14-15).

Downplays: The lack of explicit Exodus language in Psalm 118. No mention of Egypt, Pharaoh, or sea crossing. Must import context from broader Hallel tradition.

Handles fault lines by: Specific Event (Exodus), Providential Arrangement (God orchestrated deliverance), Corporate Liturgy (Passover ritual), Declarative Joy (natural response to deliverance).

Cannot adequately explain: Why Psalm 118 lacks typical Exodus motifs if Exodus is the referent. Other Hallel psalms explicitly mention Egypt (Psalm 114); this one doesn't.

Conflicts with: Post-Exilic Deliverance Reading at the point of historical referent. Both claim specific event, but different events.

Reading 2: The Post-Exilic Deliverance Reading

Claim: "The day" refers to Israel's return from Babylonian exile or temple rededication (Ezra 6, Nehemiah 8).

Key proponents: Some form-critical scholars (Artur Weiser argues Psalm 118 fits Second Temple liturgy); Jewish tradition links it to Hanukkah (rededication of temple).

Emphasizes: "Stone the builders rejected" (v. 22) as Israel rejected by nations but vindicated. "Gates of righteousness" (v. 19) as literal temple gates. "Made" as God bringing about return and restoration.

Downplays: Pre-exilic dating of Psalm 118 by some scholars. Must argue for late composition or liturgical reappropriation.

Handles fault lines by: Specific Event (return from exile), Providential Arrangement (God orchestrated return), Corporate Liturgy (temple rededication ceremony), Declarative Joy (response to restoration).

Cannot adequately explain: How a post-exilic psalm became part of Hallel tradition associated with much earlier festivals (Passover, Sukkot).

Conflicts with: Messianic Fulfillment Reading on whether "the day" is past (return from exile) or future/inaugurated (Christ's resurrection).

Reading 3: The Messianic Fulfillment Reading

Claim: "The day" is the day of Christ's resurrection, when the rejected stone (v. 22) became the cornerstone.

Key proponents: Early Christian interpretation (Gospel writers apply v. 22 to Jesus in Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17); patristic exegesis (Augustine's Expositions on Psalms reads v. 24 as Easter Sunday).

Emphasizes: Continuity with v. 22-23. New Testament citations create canonical linkage. "Made" as God's vindication of Jesus through resurrection.

Downplays: The Hebrew Bible's own context. Must read Psalm 118 prospectively, through Christian lens. Original Israelite audience could not have understood this reference.

Handles fault lines by: Specific Event (resurrection), Providential/Ontological (God both orchestrated events and inaugurated new creation), Corporate Liturgy (Easter liturgy), Declarative Joy (apostolic response to resurrection).

Cannot adequately explain: How to honor the psalm's original Old Testament meaning while claiming fulfillment. Risk of supersessionism (replacing Jewish interpretation with Christian).

Conflicts with: Exodus Commemoration Reading and Post-Exilic Deliverance Reading on temporal referent. All claim specific historical event, but centuries apart.

Reading 4: The Daily Sanctification Reading

Claim: "The day" means any day—each day God gives is a gift to be received with gratitude and joy.

Key proponents: Devotional literature (Charles Spurgeon's Treasury of David emphasizes daily application); modern evangelical usage (popularized in Christian music, e.g., "This Is the Day" by Scripture in Song, 1967).

Emphasizes: Universal applicability. Every morning is "the day the Lord has made." "Made" as ontological creation (God creates each day). Personal resolve ("we will rejoice") as daily choice.

Downplays: The psalm's liturgical specificity. Treats v. 24 as detachable maxim, ignoring surrounding context (vv. 22-23, 25-26). Flattens "this" into "every."

Handles fault lines by: Any Day (generic time), Ontological Creation (God makes all days), Individual Resolve (personal choice), Imperative Joy (discipline of gratitude).

Cannot adequately explain: Why the psalmist used demonstrative "this" (zeh) if meaning "any." Hebrew has words for "each day" (yom yom) not used here.

Conflicts with: All specific-event readings on temporal reference. Devotional reading erases historical particularity that other readings defend.

Reading 5: The Liturgical Present Reading

Claim: "The day" is the day of worship itself—whenever the community gathers, that day becomes "the day the Lord has made."

Key proponents: Some liturgical theologians (Brevard Childs emphasizes canonical function over original historical reference); Jewish synagogue tradition (Psalm 118 used in various festival contexts, not tied to one).

Emphasizes: Ritual time. Worship creates sacred temporality where past deliverance becomes present reality. "Made" as God's making this day holy through gathered community.

Downplays: Any single historical anchor. Resists both Christian messianic reading and Jewish festival-specific reading in favor of repeatable liturgical function.

Handles fault lines by: Specific Event (the worship event), Providential Arrangement (God sanctifies this gathering), Corporate Liturgy (ritual declaration), Declarative Joy (liturgical response).

Cannot adequately explain: Whether the original psalm had a historical referent that liturgical reuse then generalized, or whether it was always liturgically generic. Historical question left unresolved.

Conflicts with: Daily Sanctification Reading on individual vs. corporate focus. Both claim repeatability, but liturgical reading requires gathered community; devotional reading individualizes.

Harmonization Strategies

Strategy 1: Layered Fulfillment (Typological Progression)

How it works: "The day" originally referred to a specific Old Testament event (Exodus or return from exile) that typologically anticipated the ultimate fulfillment in Christ's resurrection, which believers now commemorate daily or liturgically.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Temporal Reference (all readings true at different levels), Divine Action (both providential acts and creational newness in resurrection).

Which readings rely on it: Christian interpreters seeking to honor Jewish interpretation while asserting Christian fulfillment (e.g., Christological exegesis that respects Old Testament context).

What it cannot resolve: Whether typology is historically defensible or retrospectively imposed. Jewish interpreters reject Christian typological reading as eisegesis. Also doesn't explain why the psalm itself contains no prophetic markers indicating future fulfillment.

Strategy 2: Genre Distinction (Liturgy Allows Multiple Referents)

How it works: Liturgical texts function differently than historical narratives. Psalm 118:24 is deliberately open-ended to allow reuse in multiple contexts. "The day" means "whatever day is liturgically significant."

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Temporal Reference (avoids choosing one event), Human Response (liturgy is inherently corporate and repeatable).

Which readings rely on it: Liturgical Present Reading, some forms of Jewish interpretation that use the same psalm for multiple festivals.

What it cannot resolve: Whether this genre flexibility means the psalm originally lacked a specific referent, or whether it had one that later became generalized. Also doesn't address why some verses in Psalm 118 seem quite specific (e.g., v. 10-12 mentions nations, battle imagery).

Strategy 3: Immediate Context Override (v. 22 Determines v. 24)

How it works: "The day" must refer to the day when "the stone the builders rejected became the cornerstone" (v. 22), whatever day that is. Interpretation of v. 22 determines v. 24.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Temporal Reference (v. 22 provides anchor), Divine Action (focuses on God's reversal/vindication).

Which readings rely on it: Messianic Fulfillment Reading (if v. 22 = resurrection, v. 24 = Easter), Post-Exilic Deliverance Reading (if v. 22 = Israel's vindication after exile, v. 24 = return).

What it cannot resolve: Disagreement about what v. 22 refers to. Christian and Jewish interpreters read v. 22 differently, so linking v. 24 to v. 22 simply shifts the debate up two verses. Also doesn't explain v. 24's generic language ("the day") versus v. 22's specific imagery.

Strategy 4: Dual-Register Reading (Historical and Devotional Simultaneously)

How it works: The verse operates on two registers: historical (what it meant in original context) and devotional (how it functions in ongoing spirituality). Both are valid; they answer different questions.

Which Fault Lines it addresses: Temporal Reference (specific event historically, any day devotionally), Human Response (liturgical originally, individual in modern use).

Which readings rely on it: Scholars who distinguish "what it meant" from "what it means," devotional commentaries that acknowledge historical context but apply the verse contemporarily.

What it cannot resolve: Whether devotional use is a legitimate continuation of the text's meaning or a distortion of it. Also creates two-tier system where scholarly reading becomes irrelevant to spirituality, and spiritual reading becomes exegetically ungrounded.

Canon-Voice Conflict (Non-Harmonizing Option)

Some scholars (James Kugel, Michael Fishbane on inner-biblical interpretation) argue that Psalm 118:24's ambiguity is intentional, allowing the canon to speak in multiple voices. The psalm's reuse in different contexts (Passover, Hanukkah, Christian Easter, daily prayer) demonstrates that Scripture's meaning is not exhausted by original authorial intent. The tension between specific-event and any-day readings is a feature, not a bug. Attempts to resolve it into one meaning flatten the text's canonical richness.

Tradition-Specific Profiles

Jewish Liturgical Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: Psalm 118 as Hallel (psalms of praise) recited at Passover, Sukkot, and Hanukkah. "The day" participates in liturgical time-collapse where past deliverance (Exodus, Maccabean victory) becomes present in ritual.

Named anchor: Mishnah Pesachim 5:7 prescribes Hallel (Psalms 113-118) for Passover. Rashi's commentary on Psalms (11th century) links Psalm 118 to festival liturgy. Modern Orthodox siddur (prayer book) includes Psalm 118 in Hallel service.

How it differs from: Christian reading by rejecting messianic interpretation of v. 22 and thus v. 24. Also differs from evangelical devotional reading by insisting on communal, festival context rather than individualized daily application.

Unresolved tension: Which festival is primary context for Psalm 118? Passover (Exodus deliverance), Sukkot (harvest thanksgiving), or Hanukkah (temple rededication)? Jewish tradition uses it for all three, but this creates multiple historical referents.

Patristic/Orthodox Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: Psalm 118:24 as the quintessential Easter proclamation. "The day" is pascha (Passover/Easter), when Christ's resurrection inaugurated new creation. Liturgical recitation during Paschal vigil and Bright Week (week following Easter).

Named anchor: Augustine's Enarrationes in Psalmos (Expositions on the Psalms, early 5th century) on Psalm 118 reads v. 24 christologically. Byzantine liturgy uses Psalm 118 in Matins (Orthros) for Easter Sunday. John Chrysostom's Easter homilies reference v. 24.

How it differs from: Protestant devotional reading by tying the verse exclusively to Easter liturgy, not daily application. Differs from Jewish reading by seeing v. 22 (rejected stone) as prophecy fulfilled in Christ, making v. 24 refer to resurrection day.

Unresolved tension: How to maintain that "the day" specifically means Easter Sunday while also using the psalm in other liturgical contexts (e.g., Sundays throughout the year, feast days). Tension between specificity (Easter) and liturgical repeatability.

Reformed/Calvinist Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: God's sovereignty in "making" the day. Emphasizes divine agency (God creates all days, all circumstances) and human duty to respond with joy as act of obedience and worship.

Named anchor: John Calvin's Commentary on the Psalms (1557) on Psalm 118:24 stresses God's providential control and the believer's duty to rejoice in God's will. Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) Q1 ("Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever") resonates with rejoicing as duty.

How it differs from: Arminian/Wesleyan readings that emphasize human free will to "choose joy." Reformed reading sees rejoicing as response to God's sovereign decree, not autonomous choice. Differs from liturgical readings (Jewish, Orthodox) by allowing individual, non-corporate application.

Unresolved tension: How to avoid fatalism. If God "makes" every day (including days of suffering, injustice), does rejoicing become denial or Stoicism? Reformed theologians debate whether the verse commands joy in all circumstances or joy in recognizing God's ultimate purposes.

Pentecostal/Charismatic Tradition

Distinctive emphasis: "This is the day" as prophetic declaration over one's circumstances. Emphasizes personal agency in choosing joy and "speaking into existence" God's blessing. Often used as confession or affirmation.

Named anchor: Popular worship song "This Is the Day" (1967, Les Garrett, Scripture in Song movement) became staple in charismatic worship. Widely used in Word of Faith movement (Kenneth Hagin, Joyce Meyer reference the verse in teaching on positive confession).

How it differs from: Reformed reading by emphasizing human declaration and faith-speech, not just response to God's decree. Differs from liturgical traditions by decontextualizing the verse from communal worship into individual spiritual warfare or affirmation.

Unresolved tension: Whether the verse authorizes "name it and claim it" theology. Critics within and outside the tradition question whether Psalm 118:24 supports prophetic declaration or simply describes God's action. Debate centers on "we will rejoice"—is it confession that creates reality or response to existing reality?

Reading vs. Usage

Textual Reading

Careful interpreters recognize Psalm 118:24 functions within a liturgical thanksgiving psalm celebrating deliverance (vv. 5-21) and likely associated with temple worship. "The day" is demonstrative, pointing to a specific moment or liturgically present moment. "Made" (asah) suggests God's active involvement in bringing about events (providential) or creating the temporal frame (ontological). "We will rejoice" is cohortative, a communal liturgical resolve or invitation. The verse is corporate, cultic, and context-dependent—tied to vv. 22-23 (rejected stone) and vv. 25-26 (hosanna petition).

Popular Usage

In contemporary speech, memes, and greeting cards, Psalm 118:24 functions as an affirmation of general positivity: "Every day is a gift; choose joy." Often quoted on Mondays as motivation to embrace the workweek. Used in social media posts with sunrise photos. Severed from liturgical or historical context, the verse becomes a therapeutic maxim about attitude adjustment. "The day" becomes "today" or "every day." "We will rejoice" becomes individual choice, even duty to maintain optimism.

The Gap

What gets lost: The corporate, liturgical dimension. The verse's connection to specific deliverance events. The tension with surrounding verses (especially the suffering and opposition in vv. 10-13). The ambiguity that invited Jewish-Christian debate about historical referent. The cohortative mood's exhortative force (communal invitation, not just personal resolve).

What gets added: Therapeutic individualism. The implication that joy is always accessible through choice, regardless of circumstances. Implicit prosperity gospel (if you rejoice, good things follow). Stripped of historical salvation context, the verse becomes about self-help rather than God's redemptive acts.

Why the distortion persists: Modern Western culture values individual agency and positive thinking. The verse's grammatical structure ("we will rejoice") lends itself to voluntarist reading. Evangelical worship music ("This Is the Day" song) popularized the individualized application. The verse is short, memorable, and sounds uplifting—ideal for commodification in inspirational products. It serves a cultural need for daily motivation, even if that need is foreign to the psalm's original function.

Reception History

Patristic Era (2nd-5th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Early Christian communities needed biblical warrant for celebrating Christ's resurrection as the definitive redemptive event. Jewish-Christian debate over messianic prophecy in the Psalms.

How it was deployed: Church fathers (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho; Tertullian, Against Marcion) cited Psalm 118:22 (rejected stone) as prophecy of Christ's rejection and vindication. Verse 24 was read as the resurrection day—"the day the Lord made" by raising Jesus. Used polemically against Jewish interpretation of v. 22 as Israel's vindication.

Named anchor: Augustine of Hippo's Expositions on the Psalms (Enarrationes in Psalmos, c. 400-420 CE) provides extensive commentary on Psalm 118. He reads v. 24 as Easter Sunday and interprets "we will rejoice" as the church's response to resurrection. This interpretation became normative in Western Christianity.

Legacy: Established Easter as the primary Christian referent for "the day," marginalizing other temporal readings. Created expectation that Psalm 118 should be read christologically, influencing all subsequent Christian exegesis.

Medieval Era (6th-15th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Christian liturgical calendar development required biblical texts for feast days. Jewish communities in diaspora needed portable, non-temple-dependent liturgy.

How it was deployed: In Christian tradition, Psalm 118 became fixed in Easter liturgy (especially Orthodox and Catholic traditions). In Jewish tradition, Psalm 118 became part of Hallel, recited on pilgrimage festivals (Passover, Shavuot, Sukkot) and Hanukkah, connecting diaspora communities to festival cycles even without temple access.

Named anchor: Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzhaki, 1040-1105) in his Psalms commentary connects Psalm 118 to Passover Hallel, reading v. 24 as liturgical rejoicing in Exodus deliverance. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, 13th century) references Psalm 118:24 in discussions of joy as proper response to divine goodness. Christian liturgical books (e.g., Sarum Rite, medieval England) prescribe Psalm 118 for Easter.

Legacy: Solidified dual-track interpretation—Christian (Easter) and Jewish (Passover/festivals)—that persists today. Liturgical fixity made the verse less susceptible to allegorical innovation; its function was stable even as theological interpretations varied.

Reformation Era (16th-17th centuries)

Conflict it addressed: Protestant emphasis on Scripture alone (sola scriptura) required fresh exegesis independent of church tradition. Debate over free will vs. divine sovereignty.

How it was deployed: Reformers used Psalm 118 to emphasize God's sovereignty in salvation ("the day the Lord has made" underscores divine initiative). Verse 24's "we will rejoice" became interpreted as duty and grace—believers rejoice not by autonomous choice but as response to God's prior action.

Named anchor: Martin Luther's lectures on the Psalms (1513-1515, published later) interpret Psalm 118 christologically but also emphasize justification by faith—God's action ("the Lord has made") precedes human response ("we will rejoice"). John Calvin's Commentary on the Book of Psalms (1557) on Psalm 118:24 stresses God's providence: "This is the day which Jehovah hath made... we ought to lay it down as a settled principle, that God worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."

Legacy: Reformed reading introduced tension between divine sovereignty (God makes the day) and human agency (we choose to rejoice). This tension shapes ongoing debate in evangelical theology about whether joy is gift or discipline, response or obedience.

Modern/Contemporary Era (18th century-present)

Conflict it addressed: Rise of historical-critical scholarship questioned traditional interpretations. Evangelical revivalism sought accessible, applicable Scripture. Secularization created market for inspirational spirituality detached from doctrinal specifics.

How it was deployed: Historical-critical scholars (Hermann Gunkel, Artur Weiser) analyzed Psalm 118's Sitz im Leben (life setting), arguing for cultic/liturgical origin divorced from specific historical event. This challenged both Christian messianic and Jewish festival-specific readings. Meanwhile, evangelical devotional culture (Charles Spurgeon's Treasury of David, 1870s; modern worship music) popularized daily application, individualizing "the day" as any day.

Named anchor: Hermann Gunkel's Introduction to the Psalms (1933, posthumous) classifies Psalm 118 as thanksgiving liturgy, emphasizing genre over historical event. Charles Spurgeon's Treasury of David (1870-1885) on Psalm 118:24: "This day is the Lord's own making... Let us not treat it as if it were a common day." The Scripture in Song movement (1960s-70s, New Zealand charismatic worship) produced "This Is the Day" (1967, Les Garrett), which became ubiquitous in evangelical worship, emphasizing personal choice to rejoice.

Legacy: Created bifurcation: academic interpretation (liturgical, non-referential) vs. popular devotional use (individualized, daily). Worship music disseminated devotional reading globally, making Psalm 118:24 one of the most recognized verses in evangelical Christianity, often disconnected from its psalm context.

Open Interpretive Questions

Temporal specificity: Does "this is the day" (zeh hayom) grammatically require a specific referent, or can demonstratives function generically in Hebrew liturgical poetry? If generic, why not use "kol yom" (every day)?
Canonical linkage: Should Psalm 118:24 be interpreted in light of v. 22's "rejected stone," and if so, does New Testament appropriation of v. 22 (Matthew 21:42, etc.) authorize christological reading of v. 24, or does it represent a separate, later hermeneutical move?
Liturgical repeatability: If Psalm 118 was composed for a specific historical event (Exodus, return from exile, military victory), at what point did it become generalized for repeated liturgical use, and does that generalization alter the verse's meaning or merely its application?
Divine action scope: When the verse says God "made" the day, does it mean God created the temporal unit (day), orchestrated the events within the day, or sanctified the day by being present/active in it? Can the Hebrew verb "asah" distinguish between these, or does it intentionally encompass all three?
Emotional imperative: Is the cohortative "we will rejoice" a command to feel joy, a commitment to express joy regardless of feeling, or a description of joy that will inevitably follow from recognizing God's work? Does the verse prescribe emotion, behavior, or both?
Individual vs. corporate: Can Psalm 118:24 be legitimately applied to individual daily devotion, or does its liturgical context require communal worship setting? If individual application is valid, what hermeneutical principle justifies extracting the verse from its corporate context?
Ontological vs. historical: Is the primary claim of Psalm 118:24 that God controls all time (ontological—God makes every day), or that God acts decisively in particular moments (historical—God made this specific day special)? Do these readings conflict or coexist?
Messianic anticipation: Does Psalm 118 contain prospective messianic content (making Christian interpretation of v. 24 as Easter warranted), or is Christian reading a retrospective imposition (making it eisegesis)? What criteria determine legitimate typological reading?
Translation theology: Should "the day which the LORD hath made" be translated to emphasize completed action ("has made"), ongoing action ("is making"), or timeless truth ("makes")? Which tense best captures Hebrew perfect aspect in liturgical context?
Suffering context: Psalm 118:10-13 describes intense opposition and near defeat. How does v. 24's call to rejoice relate to this suffering? Does the verse demand joy despite circumstances, because of deliverance from circumstances, or as defiant response to circumstances?

Reading Matrix

Reading	Temporal Reference	Divine Action	Human Response	Emotional Scope
Exodus Commemoration	Specific Event (Exodus)	Providential Arrangement	Corporate Liturgy	Declarative Joy
Post-Exilic Deliverance	Specific Event (return from exile)	Providential Arrangement	Corporate Liturgy	Declarative Joy
Messianic Fulfillment	Specific Event (Easter)	Providential + Ontological (new creation)	Corporate Liturgy	Declarative Joy
Daily Sanctification	Any Day (each day)	Ontological Creation	Individual Resolve	Imperative Joy
Liturgical Present	Specific Event (worship day)	Providential (sanctifies gathering)	Corporate Liturgy	Declarative Joy

Agreement vs. Disagreement

Broad agreement exists on:

God is the active agent; "the day" is divinely made, not merely naturally occurring or humanly constructed.
Human response is joy/rejoicing, not fear, mourning, or indifference.
The verse functions liturgically in both Jewish and Christian traditions, not primarily as private meditation.
Verse 24 connects to the broader psalm's theme of deliverance and vindication, not freestanding wisdom isolated from context.

Disagreement persists on:

Temporal reference: Whether "the day" denotes a specific historical event (Exodus, return from exile, Easter) or a repeatable category (any day, worship day).
Scope of divine action: Whether God "makes" the day ontologically (creates time), historically (brings about events), or liturgically (sanctifies worship).
Human agency: Whether "we will rejoice" is volitional choice (individual resolve, discipline) or responsive inevitability (corporate liturgical declaration).
Canonical function: Whether Psalm 118:24 should be interpreted christologically (Easter), historically (Israelite deliverance), or devotionally (daily gratitude), and what hermeneutical principles adjudicate between these.
Legitimacy of decontextualization: Whether individualized, non-liturgical use (daily devotion, inspirational application) honors or distorts the verse's meaning.

Related Verses

Same unit / immediate context:

Psalm 118:22 — "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" creates messianic tension for Christian readers, potentially making v. 24 refer to resurrection day.
Psalm 118:25-26 — "LORD, save us! LORD, grant us success! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the LORD" (hosanna passage quoted during Jesus's triumphal entry, connecting v. 24 to Passion Week in Christian interpretation).

Tension-creating parallels:

Genesis 1:5 — "God called the light Day... And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day." If God "made" the day in Genesis by creating time itself, does Psalm 118:24 invoke creational authority?
Lamentations 3:22-23 — "His mercies are new every morning." Similar theme of God's daily provision, but Lamentations context is suffering, not deliverance. Raises question: rejoice because suffering ended (Psalm 118) or rejoice despite ongoing suffering (Lamentations)?
Ecclesiastes 7:14 — "When times are good, be happy; but when times are bad, consider: God has made the one as well as the other." Challenges whether "the day the Lord has made" implies all days warrant rejoicing, including days of calamity.

Harmonization targets:

John 20:1 — "Early on the first day of the week... Mary Magdalene went to the tomb." Christian tradition harmonizes Psalm 118:24 with Easter Sunday as "the day the Lord has made."
Acts 4:11 — Peter quotes Psalm 118:22 ("the stone the builders rejected") in reference to Jesus, creating exegetical pressure to read v. 24 christologically.
Exodus 20:8-11 — Sabbath command: "Remember the Sabbath day... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth." Raises question whether "the day the Lord has made" privileges one day (Sabbath, Easter) or affirms all days as God's creation.

Generation Notes

Fault Lines identified: 4
Competing Readings: 5
Sections with tension closure: 11/11