Bernard P. Robinson, «Form and Meaning in Psalm 131», Vol. 79 (1998) 180-197
Psalm 131 displays a subtle play on words. The psalmist has silenced and calmed down his soul/breast (he has put an end to its loud complaints). The two verbs used express or suggest the idea of assimilation (I have transformed it into something silent and something calm), which leads up to the material image which follows. In 2b gamul means a child that has been weaned or is happy (and has stopped crying loudly); instead of kaggamul one should read tiggmol, you have been nice to me. Although the psalm has an unusual form, it has the same structure as Psalm 130. It probably constitutes a literary unit. It may by royal psalm.
address to Yhwh and ending with a call to the congregation. Presumably the redactors have deliberately placed our present Psalm after one which speaks of hope and waiting42.
Some commentators, as we have said before, treat v. 3 as a redactional addition. If the Psalm was originally a purely personal poem, this is possible. If, however, it was designed to be sung by the King, an invitation to the congregation to follow the singers example of trust would have been very appropriate.
A free translation of the text as slightly emended may now be offered:
1b O LORD, my heart is not haughty,
my eyes are not lifted up.
I have not occupied
myself with great matters,
with things too wondrous for me.
2a No, I have made like something calm
and like something quiet my heaving breast:
2b like a toddler on its mother,
surely you have coddled my heaving breast.
3 Await in hope, O Israel, for the LORD,
from now and for evermore.
II.Literary Form and Sitz im Leben
Was the Psalm written as a unity? Was it cobbled together from fragments of devotional poetry deposited in the Temple and subsequently worked up into a song for congregational use? Was it (or part of it) designed for use at the Temple gates by a female worshipper with a child on her shoulder? Was it sung by the King? It is hard to say, particularly since some of these life-situations are somewhat hypothetical: we do not know whether things were deposited in the Temple (like petitions on a present-day prayer-board at the back of a church?) We do not know whether things were ever written to be used specifically by women worshippers. We do not even know for certain whether some Psalms were proclaimed by the King, though this at least is very likely.
If I had to take up a position on these matters, I should opt for taking Ps 131 as a Royal Psalm. As Crow has noted, it is plausible