Grandeur and Grace: God’s Transcendence and Immanence in Psalm 113

By George J. Zemek [1]

Professor of Theology
The Master’s Seminary

Psalm 113 is a rich treasury for all. Literarily, it is a masterpiece of semantical, syntactical, and structural development. The Spirit of God inspired this psalmist to combine beauty with bounty, resulting in a highly functional piece of art that amplifies the psalm’s theological substance and applicational summons. Liturgically, this hymn of praise has played a significant role in both Passover week and Passion week. Applicationally, it has served as a well of refreshment for needy people throughout its history. Theologically, the psalm’s message of God’s transcendence and immanence provides substance to the promise of refreshment. Today Psalm 113 continues to invite the people of God to come and drink deeply.

* * * * *

A Translation:

1 Praise the LORD! O servants of the LORD, praise Him! Praise the name of the LORD!
2 Let the name of the LORD be blessed both now and forever!
3 From east to west, let the name of the LORD be praised!
4 The LORD is high above all nations; His glory rises above the heavens.
5 Who is like the LORD our God, who is enthroned on high,
6 who condescends to care for things in the heavens and upon the earth?
7 He lifts up the downtrodden from the dust; He raises the destitute from the dump
8 to make them dwell with nobles, with the nobles of His people.
9 He makes the woman barren in household to dwell as a joyful mother of sons. Praise the LORD!

Introduction

One reason for the spiritual poverty of some Christians is their ignorance of or failure to reflect on who God is. In so doing, they have robbed themselves of a vital source of help and encouragement. No better solution to their problem is available than a careful study of Psalm 113.

“Presence-theology” discussions and debates about whether or not in the OT the LORD is ever genuinely conceived of as dwelling on earth have generally been counter-productive in the edification of the church. [2] Finite and fallible deliberations, energized by overly simplistic assumptions, have both impugned key texts and skewed their balanced theology. Conclusions that see contradiction rather than complementary truths have resulted, especially in reference to God’s transcendence and immanence. Consequently, this investigation will undertake a long-overdue examination of the psalm’s data without recourse to critical agenda.

Psalm 113 provides a natural theological entrance into two corollary truths about God, His transcendence and His immanence. As in other texts, God’s attributes of greatness and goodness, His characteristics of grandeur and grace, harmoniously blend in a theological duet. The psalm is an excellent avenue to a deeper appreciation of God’s attributes.

Literary Enhancements

Before proceeding with an exposition of the psalm, a look at how its two great themes are enhanced by a variety of stylistic features is beneficial.

Semantical

Word-plays on the roots רום (rwm, “to be high, exalted”) and ישׁב (ys̆b, “to dwell”) magnify this psalm’s astounding development. [3] God’s rank, appropriately summarized by the qal forms רָם (rām, “he is exalted”) and לָשֶׁבֶת (lās̆ebet, “to dwell”) in vv. 4a and 5b, does not inhibit God’s ability to rescue those in distress, as well depicted in the corresponding hiphil forms יָרִים (yārîm, “to raise, lift up”), לְהוֹשִׁיבִי (lĕhôs̆îbî, “to make [them] dwell”), and מוֹשִׁיבִי (môs̆îbî, “to make [her] dwell, abide”) (i.e. vv. 7b, 8a, 9a [4]). This exalted One mercifully and characteristically exalts lowly and exasperated people. He who is transcendent enables them to transcend their stifling circumstances.

Syntactical

Syntactical subtleties also accentuate the psalm’s theological motifs. For example, the introductory crescendo of hallels (i.e., “praises”) (v. 1) establishes the priority of praise to Yahweh. Then in the next two verses an inverse parallelism of four lines conveys the propriety of praise. [5] The pual participle מְבֹרָךְ (mêbôrāk, “blessed”) from ברךְ (brk, “to bless”) [6] in v. 2a is paralleled by its counterpart מְהֻלָּל (mêhullāl, “to be praised”) in v. 3b. Correspondingly, the עַד (ʿad, “unto, until”)…מִן (min, “from”) prepositional combination of v. 2b is immediately followed by its counterpart in v. 3a.

Verse 4, containing explicit assertions of God’s transcendence, is highlighted by progressions and parallels. The abbreviated יה (yh, “the LORD”) of v. 1a, the יהוה (yhwh, “the LORD”) of v. 1b, and the circumlocution ם יהוה (s̆ēm yhwh, “the name of the LORD”) of vv. 1c, 2a, and 3b anticipate the exalted one, yhwh, who is the subject of v. 4a. The Tetragrammaton is followed by another significant circumlocution in v. 4b, כְּבוֹדוֹ (kĕbôdô, “His glory”). [7]

Especially important in v. 4 are the corresponding phrases with עַל (ʿal, “above”), a preposition eminently suited to convey the concept of transcendence. [8] An upward and outward movement from “over/above all people/nations” (v. 4a) to “over/above the heavens” (v. 4b) emphasizes the concept, possibly creating the impression that God is far removed from the cares of His creatures and creation. Nevertheless, the widening concentric circles of transcendence subsequently reverse, and the reality of the LORD’s immanence emerges (vv. 6–9). This “reversal” is dramatically portrayed through a downward and inward movement (v. 6): He makes low [9] to care for matters not only “in the heavens” but also “upon the earth.” [10] This reality is vividly documented by selected examples of intervention (vv. 7–9).

The rhetorical question [11] of v. 5 is pivotal. Patterns of the basic “who-is-like” formula recur throughout the Old Testament (e.g. Exod 15:11; Deut 3:24; Ps 35:10; Isa 40:12ff; 46:5; etc.) as a part of theological affirmations and in personal names. [12] Both usages serve as reminders of the LORD’s uniqueness. [13] There is no one like Yahweh!

In the middle of v. 5 comes a shift of emphasis from being to doing. Yet the articular causative participles of vv. 5b and 6a still function substantively in apposition with the יהוה אֱוֹּינוּ (ʾĕlōhênû, “the LORD our God”) (v. 5a). [14] Furthermore, the tight apposition of…הַמַּגְבִּיהִי (hammagĕbîhî, “to make high, exalt”) (v. 5b) with…הַמַּשְׁפִּילִי (hammas̆pîlî, “to make low, condescend”) [15] (v. 6a) is extraordinary. The LORD who literally “makes high to dwell” (i.e. a poignant summary of His transcendence) is the very one who “makes low to see,” that is, to care for the needs of His subjects (i.e. an arresting introduction to His immanence). By this stark apposition transcendence and immanence join hands in complementary manifestation of the incomparable one (i.e. v. 5a).

Structural

Depending upon emphases on form and/or content, the psalm may be divided differently into major sections. [16] A basic analysis of the psalm’s form leads to the following twofold division: “a hymnic introduction” (i.e. vv. 1–3) and “the reasons why God is worthy of praise and homage” (i.e. vv. 4–9). [17] Most structural analysts, however, prefer a threefold division. [18] A few of these end divisions after vv. 1 and 3 (i.e. vv. 1, 2–3, 4–9), [19] while the majority prefer the following strophes: vv. 1–3, 4–6, 7–9. [20]

Kidner’s “high above…” (i.e. vv. 1–4)/”far down…” (i.e. vv. 5–9) separation represents a twofold division based largely on thematic considerations. [21] This breakdown naturally emphasizes the psalm’s overarching pedagogy: there is “nothing too great for Him, no-one too small.” [22] A shift to the interrogative motif at v. 5 lends some weight to this twofold division (i.e. coming between vv. 4 and 5). [23] The following propositional outline attempts to integrate the psalm’s various literary phenomena with its two thematic divisions:

Two choruses of thanksgiving flow from primary theological incentives.

1A. (vv. 1–4) The first chorus of thanksgiving flows from the incentive of God’s transcendence.

1B. (vv. 1–3) The worshipful response to God’s transcendence

1C. (v. 1) The exhortation:

1D. Its reverberation: the threefold hallel

2D. Its responsibility: the servants/worshippers of the LORD

3D. Its Recipient: the LORD

2C. (vv. 2–3) The extent:

1D. (v. 2) considered temporally

2D. (v. 3) considered geographically

2B. (v. 4) The worshipful recognition of God’s transcendence

1C. (v. 4a) He transcends all that is earthly

2C. (v. 4b) He transcends all that is heavenly

2A. (vv. 5–9) The second chorus of thanksgiving flows from the incentive of God’s immanence.

1B. (vv. 5–6) The interrogatives develop His immanence

1C. (v. 5) The interrogatives of v. 5 reveal that God’s immanence is uncompromising (i.e. it does not come at the expense of His transcendence) [24]

2C. (v. 6) The interrogative of v. 6 reveals that God’s immanence is unassuming [25]

3B. (vv. 7–9) The illustrations dramatize His immanence

1C. (vv. 7–8) The general illustration of God’s concern for the downtrodden

2C. (v. 9) The special illustration of God’s consolation for the childless

Background

Another helpful preliminary to the psalm’s exposition is an awareness of its background. Leslie conjectured that Psalm 113 “is a liturgical choir hymn which was sung antiphonally by two Levitical choirs.” [26] The specific details of its early usage are unknown, although “the setting was clearly cultic.” [27]

That it came to be recognized as “a classical Hebrew hymn” [28] is confirmed by its inclusion in the “Hallel” (i.e. Psalms 113–118) which “is recited on all major biblical festivals, with the exception of Rosh Ha-Shanah and the Day of Atonement.” [29] This grouping “is also recited during the Passover seder service (Tosef., Suk. 3:2), when it is known as Hallel Mizri (‘Egyptian Hallel’) because of the exodus from Egypt which the seder commemorates.” [30] The latter use probably relates to “The Last Supper”: [31]

It is interesting to recall that probably just as Jesus and the disciples sang a hymn after they had eaten the Passover meal (Matt 26:30)—almost certainly Pss. 115–118—so most likely before the meal they had sung Pss. 113–114. [32]

Craigie’s summary helps to complete the historical survey of Psalm 113 in worship:

With the passage of centuries, the psalm became more closely associated with the celebration of Passover. Indeed, in the modern Passover Haggadah, Psalm 113 is still recited in the context of the blessing of the cup of wine, prior to the participation in the Passover meal as such. And in Christianity, Psalm 113 was traditionally designated as one of the Proper Psalms for evening worship on Easter Day, thus linking the Christian use of the psalm to its more ancient Jewish antecedents. In both Judaism and Christianity, Psalm 113 was a special psalm, employed in the worship of God at those times in the liturgical calendar when praise par excellence should be addressed to the Almighty. [33]

Verses 7–9 of the psalm have been seen as “a connecting link between the Song of Hannah and the Magnificat of the Virgin.” [34] In fact, Craigie calls 1 Samuel 2:1–10 the prehistory of Psalm 113:7–9 and Luke 1:46–55 its posthistory. [35]

Exposition

The psalm opens and closes with הַלְלוּ יָץ (halĕlû yāh, “praise the LORD”), [36] a fitting boundary, since

Psalm 113 bids all men to let the praise of God resound all the world over and motivates the appeal with the declaration that this incomparable God, transcending the heavens in glory, is the Sovereign of the world who controls the affairs of men below from his throne onhigh. [37]

Outside this psalm, the reverberating invitations to praise in v. 1 most closely parallel Ps 135:1. [38]

Selected from an arsenal of worship synonyms, [39] הלל (hll, “praise”) is especially suited to elicit jubilant praise [40] from the community. [41] The vocative construction בְדֵי יהוה (ʿabĕdê yhwh, “servants of the LORD”) [42] is a designation for the “worshipping community,” [43] “the loyal among Israel.” [44] It is also noteworthy that the root עבד (ʿbd, “to serve, worship”) denotes both service and worship, [45] emphasizing “the privileges of the worshippers as well as their duties and responsibilities.” [46]

“The name of the LORD” (אֶת־ם יהוה [ʾet-s̆ēm yhwh]) is the object of the third echoing imperative from hll. Remembering that s̆ēm “in the OT often included existence, character, and reputation,” [47] “the name of the LORD” “signifies the whole self-disclosure of God.” [48] Passages such as Exodus 33:19–23 and 34:5–7 indicate that s̆ēm, when applied to God, encompasses the totality of His attributes and actions.

The origin of the Tetragrammaton yhwh is in question. “While no consensus exists, the name is generally thought to be a verbal form derived from the root hwy, later hyh, ‘to be at hand, exist (phenomenally), come to pass.’“ [49] Significantly, “the consensus of modern scholarship supports the biblical text [cf. Exod 3:14] in associating the name of Yahweh with the root היה….”

The jussive exhortation יְהִי (y ĕhî) standing at the head of vv. 2–3 (i.e. “May/Let the name of the LORD be…”) centers on the priority of praise, and the subordinate pual participles in these two verses with their compound prepositional phrases combine to introduce the propriety of universal praise. Indeed, “no less response in space or time is worthy of him.” [51]

Blessing formulas are common throughout ancient Near Eastern literature. The Old Testament is saturated with them (for an identical parallel to Ps 113:2a, see Job 1:21). [52] Based on the previous hallels and a subsequent parallelism with מְהֻלָּל (mĕhullāl, “being praised”) in v. 3b, יְהִי ם יהוה מְבֹרָךְ (yĕhî s̆êm yhwh mĕbōrāk, “let the name of the LORD be blessed”) stands as “an expression synonymous with ‘Praise the LORD.’“ [53] Such praise is to be unrestricted in its duration (i.e. עַתָּה עַד־עוֹלָם [mêʿattāh wĕʿad-ʿôlām]). [54] Literally, it should continue “from now and forever,” [55] i.e. “forever, without ceasing.” [56]

In the middle of the inverted parallelism of vv. 3–4, a spatial focus replaces the emphasis on time: מִמִּזְרַח־שֶׁמֶשׁ עַד־מְבוֹאוֹ (mimmizrah-s̆emes̆ ʿad-mĕbôʾô, “from the sun’s place of rising to its entrance,” [57] “throughout the world from east to west.” [58]) (v. 4a). Concerning מְהֻלָּל (mĕhullāl, “being praised”) (v. 3b), [59] “the part. pual describes God as ‘worthy of praise.’“ [60] The following assertions of His transcendence and immanence support the praiseworthiness of His name always and everywhere.

One of the major spheres of usage of רוּם (rûm, “to be high, exalted”) (cf. rām at the head of v. 4) is “height as symbolic of positive notions such as glory and exaltation.” [61] Besides v. 4a, several passages corroborate God’s exaltation, e.g., Ps 46:11; 99:2; 138:6; [62] Isa 6:1; 57:15 [63]; etc. [64] Furthermore, the prepositional phrase עַל־כָּל־גּוֹיִם (ʿal-kol-gôyim, “above all nations”) provides greater resolution to this portrait of God’s transcendence. [65] When attention is fixed upon the exalted LORD, all the gôyim pale into insignificance (cf., e.g., Ps 46:11; Isa 40:17).

The LORD’s kābôd (v. 4b), like His s̆êm, refers to “God’s self-disclosure,” [66] often standing for “Yahweh himself.” [67] It is that very “glory,” representing all He is and does, that surpasses the highest heavens.

These affirmations of transcendence (v. 4) are a powerful incentive for the invited praise (vv. 1–3). Although the order is switched, similar choruses in Psalms 57:6, 12 and 108:6 also observe the priority and propriety of praise: “Be exalted above the heavens, O God; and Your glory above all the earth!”

The implied response to the rhetorical questions in v. 5 is “No one!” Not one compares with “the LORD, our God.” [68] It seems that אֱוֹּיבַוּ (ʾĕlōhênû, “our God”) has covenantal overtones [69] and anticipates the gracious interventions of vv. 7–9. [70] Yet it must be remembered that this personal God “makes high to dwell” (v. 4a). [71] Expressed in the participle הַמַּגְבִּיהִי (hammagbîhî, v. 5b), the verb גָּבַץ (gābah, “to be high, make high” [72]), a synonym of rûm and an antonym of שָׁפַל (s̆āpal, “be low”), [73] “is often used to describe the greatness, height, or high position of a person….” [74] Gābah combines idiomatically with the complementary infinitive lās̆ebet (from יָשַׁב [yās̆ab, “to dwell”]) in a vivid statement of the LORD’s exalted enthronement: “who is enthroned on high.” [75]

Even though v. 6a is conceptually antithetical to v. 5b, it is also syntactically appositional. [76] Delitzsch captures the apparent irony of a transcendent/immanent God:

He is the incomparable One who has set up His throne in the height, but at the same time directs His gaze deep downwards…in the heavens and upon the earth, i.e. nothing in all the realm of the creatures that are beneath Him escapes His sight, and nothing is so low that it remains unnoticed by Him; on the contrary, it is just that which is lowly, as the following strophe presents to us in a series of portraits so to speak, that is the special object of His regard. [77]

Consequently, while the hammagbîhî of v. 5b trumpets exaltation, the hammas̆pîlî of v. 6a whispers condescension. [78]

The complementary infinitive לִרְאוֹת (lirĕʾot, “to see”), from the common רָאָה (rāʾāh), carries an uncommon theological significance. In contexts such as this and Gen 22:8, 14; 29:32; 1 Sam 1:11; [79] 2 Sam 16:12; Ps 106:44, rāʾāh means to look at with interest, kindness, and helpfulness. [80] Used here to confirm the LORD’s intervention, it is acceptably rendered, “Who condescends to care for” [81] (things) “in the heavens and upon the earth.” His gracious condescension more than compensates for life’s hard conditions (e.g. vv. 7–9).

The anarthrous causative participles of vv. 7–9 (i.e. מְקִימִי [mĕqîmî, “raising up”], יָרִים [yārîm, “lifting up”], מוֹשִׁיבִי [môs̆îbî, “causing to dwell”]) illuminate His merciful immanence via forceful illustrations. In vv. 7–8 a general but extremely significant illustration of God’s active concern for the downtrodden arouses the reader’s amazement first. Then another unexpected example follows: God’s consolation for the childless (v. 9). In reference to both illustrations, Allen recalls that “the third strophe [i.e. vv. 7–9] uses 1 Samuel 1–2 to illustrate this grace in terms of the providential reversal Yahweh brings about, raising the socially underprivileged to positions of respect.” [82] Kidner appropriately digresses regarding the theological ramifications of this psalm’s great climax:

Consciously…those verses look back to the song of Hannah,

which they quote almost exactly (cf. 7, 8a with 1 Sa. 2:8). Hence the sudden reference to the childless woman who becomes a mother (9), for this was Hannah’s theme. With such a background the psalm not only makes its immediate point, that the Most High cares for the most humiliated, but brings to mind the train of events that can follow from such an intervention. Hannah’s joy became all Israel’s; Sarah’s became the world’s. And the song of Hannah was to be outshone one day by the Magnificat. The spectacular events of our verses 7 and 8 are not greater than this domestic one; the most important of them have sprung from just such an origin. [83]

The דָּל (dāl, “poor”) and the אֶבְיוֹן (ʾebyôn, “needy”), [84] normally social outcasts, are the focal point of God’s bold intervention in vv. 7–8. [85] Although “the dal was not numbered among dependents who have no property,” [86] he still represented “those who lack.” [87] The plight of the ʾebyôn in the Old Testament generally seems to be more aggravated: “The destitution of the ʾebhyon is to be inferred from the whole tenor of the appropriate psalms: it manifests itself in affliction, illness, loneliness, and nearness to death.” [88] Therefore, he represents those who are materially, socially, and spiritually in need. [89] God really cares for such people! [90]

In the parallelisms of v. 7, the dāl was associated with the עָפָר (ʿāpār, “dust,” “an emblem of lowly estate,” [91] and the ʾebhyon with the אַשְׁפֹּת (ʾas̆pōt), an “ash-heap, refuse-heap, dung-hill,” [92] certainly “an emblem of deepest poverty and desertion.” [93] Anderson briefly describes the imagery of such an ancient garbage dump as this when he comments,

It was the rubbish heap outside the village or town, which had become the pitiful shelter of the poor, the outcasts, and the diseased (cf. Lam 4:5; also Job 2:8). There they begged, ransacked the refuse dump to find some scraps of food, and slept. [94]

But the LORD mercifully extricates the needy from (cf. the two occurrences of מִן [min, “from”]) such dire circumstances. He “lifts up, raises” [95] them from their predicament. The lifted up and exalted One (vv. 4–5) “can make men high in rank (i.e. ‘exalt’ them…).” [96] Verse 8 confirms that by its progression from extrication to exaltation.

The LORD’s intention is “to cause [them] to dwell,” [97] “to make (them) sit” (i.e. lĕhôsîbî) [98] in fellowship with [99] נְדִיבִים (nĕdîbîm, “nobles, princes”), those of “exalted material and social position.” [100] Verse 8 is therefore “a figure for elevation to the highest rank and dignity,” [101] and compared with the plight of v. 7, it “is meant to bring out by way of contrast the magnitude of divine power and grace.” [102]

Barrenness (v. 9) in the cultural context of the Old Testament was a pitiful status. [103] “The lot of a childless wife must have been hard (cf. 1 Sam 1:6), for barrenness was often regarded as a disgrace and a curse from God (cf. Gen 16:2, 20:18; 1 Sam 1:5; Luke 1:25…).” [104] It is no wonder that, from a woman’s perspective, a barren womb was among the insatiable things in Proverbs 30:15–17 (cf. Rachel’s agonizing cry in Gen 30:1). From a man’s perspective, it occasioned ultimate frustration as indicated by Abraham’s response in Gen 15:2 and Jacob’s in Gen 30:2.

Although the syntactical options of v. 9 are diverse, [105] the overarching impact of its illustration is incontestable. The gracious LORD “makes the woman barren in the household to dwell [106] as a joyful mother of sons,” i.e. “he grants her security.” [107] Consequently, He not only prospers the poor (v. 8), but He also blesses the barren (v. 9). The appropriate הַלְלוּ יָץ (halĕlû yāh, “praise the LORD”) closes the psalm.

What a majestic God Psalm 113 reveals! Yet his grandeur does not nullify His grace, and conversely, His grace does not undermine His grandeur:

The bridge which man himself cannot throw across to reach the remote, transcendent God nevertheless exists; it is built by God himself so that in spite of all the disparity between God and man a communion exists between them which enables man to believe that the God who is far off is also the God of the here and now. What remains a mystery to the mind of man is revealed to the eyes of faith: that the exalted God not only looks down upon men but inclines graciously to them. [108]

Conclusion

Since God is supreme in the universe for all time and yet has still shown concern for His creatures, how should His children respond? Certainly a reverent gratitude is in order, as is a God-consciousness that pervades every activity and attitude. In times of need, reminders of a transcendent God’s involvement in human life can be important sources of strength. These and other lessons derive from Psalm 113, a gem among gems. Disclosures about God that arise from the exquisite beauty of the language should be adorning the Bride of Christ. Furthermore, preachers and teachers of God’s word should shine their expositional floodlights on this Scripture more regularly. God’s infinite greatness and inexplicable grace need more attention. The richly blessed should voice spontaneous thanksgiving and praise to Him who reigns in heaven and yet responds to human needs.

Notes

1. This essay was originally presented at the Forty-first Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in San Diego, CA, in November 1989 and has been adapted for incorporation in this issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal.
2. See John Gray, I and II Kings: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970) 215; Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 37, 194–95, 325–26; Walter Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (Atlanta: John Knox, 1978) 70-81; Eugene H. Maly, “‘The Highest Heavens Cannot Contain You’: Immanence and Transcendence in the Deuteronomist,” Standing Before God (ed. by A. Finkel and L. Frizzell; New York: KTAV, 1981) 29; G. von Rad, “οὐρανός,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT] 5:504–7; cf. the critical hypotheses which undergird most of the related discussions pertaining to “place-theology” and “name-theology.” For brief critiques and interaction, note W. C. Kaiser, “רָשַׁב,” Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament [TWOT] 1:411–12; idem, “ם,” TWOT 2:934–35.
3. Cf. Leslie C. Allen, Psalms 101–150 (Word Biblical Commentary; Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 100.
4. Most interpreters construe מוֹשִׁישִׁי as a hiphil participle from ישׁב; contra. David Freedman, “Psalm 113 and the Song of Hannah,” Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1980) 249, who suggests it derives from שׁוב (i.e. “who transforms…”).
5. A bridge to this chiasm is provided by the אֶת־ם יהוה at the end of v. 1, since occurrences of ם יהוה serve as book ends for vv. 2–3.
6. ברךְ is part of a repertoire of Old Testament praise synonyms; cf. הלל, ידה, רנן, שׁיר, גדל, רום, זמר, etc.
7. The כְּבוֹדוֹ of v. 4b may be construed as standing at the head of a parallel noun clause or as also governed by the רָם of v. 4a. Concerning the latter option, Buttenwieser translates, “His glory transcends…,” arguing that “ram is a case of zeugma and is to be construed as a predicate also with kebodo” (Moses Buttenwieser, The Psalms Chronologically Treated with a New Translation [New York: KTAV, 1969] 348).
8. Cf. BDB, 752, 755; Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1967) 51; and G. L. Carr, “עָלָה,” TWOT 2:669–70.
9. Cf. E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, eds., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar [GKC] (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970) 350 (par. 114n).
10. Besides the impacting reversal of order (i.e. v. 4: earthly, heavenly; v. 6: heavenly, earthly), the shift from the preposition עַל in v. 4 to occurrences of בְ in v. 6 contributes to the change in mood (i.e. from separation to involvement).
11. Obviously, when proper attention is paid to the immediate context, “there is…much more than rhetoric in the question of verse 5, ‘Who is like the Lord our God?’“ (Derek Kidner, Psalms 73–150 [Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1975] 402).
12. Survey BDB, pp. 567-68, for the proper names built upon this theological formula.
13. Cf., e.g., C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability of Yahweh in the Old Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966) 22, 99, 102.
14. Through a less formal syntactical relationship, even the anarthrous participles of vv. 7–9 continue as vital links in a strong theological chain.
15. For various views on the so-called hireq compaginis, see discussions in GKC 253–54 (par. 90m, n); Mitchell Dahood, Psalms III: 101–150 (Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1970) 130; F. Delitzsch, Psalms: Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes (C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, eds.; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, n.d.) 3:203–4; Avi Hurvitz, “Originals and Imitations in Biblical Poetry: A Comparative Examination of I Samuel 2:1–10 and Psalm 113:5–9, ” Biblical and Related Studies Presented to Samuel Iwry (ed. by A. Kort and S. Morschauser; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1985) 119-22; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms (New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972) 2:782; and Allen, Psalms 101–150 99, n. 6a. Cf. also the forms in vv. 7a, 8a (probably), and 9a.
16. For an excellent survey of the options, see Allen, Psalms 101–150, 99–100.
17. Anderson, The Book of Psalms 2:780.
18. Based upon an older method of grouping various combinations of parallelism Briggs adopted a fourfold strophic division (Charles Augustus Briggs, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Psalms [ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1907] 2:387).
19. See Allen, Psalms 101–150, 99.
20. Cf. the strophic and poetic analyses of K. K. Sacon, “A Methodological Remark on Exegesis and Preaching of Psalm 113, ” Nihon no Shingaku 25 (1986) 26-42 (see Old Testament Abstracts 10/1 [Feb 1987] 65); Peter C. Craigie, “Psalm 113, ” Interpretation 39/1 (Jan 1985) 70–74. Craigie astutely develops the strophes in reverse order because “we will only be able to respond honestly to the opening summons to praise when we have perceived God’s merciful dealings with human beings (vv. 7–9) and his majesty in heaven and earth (vv. 4–6)” (ibid., 71).
21. Kidner, Psalms 73–150, 401.
22. I.e. Kidner’s title for Psalm 113 (ibid.).
23. Cf. Allen, Psalms 101–150. 100.
24. This particular reminder of an uncompromised transcendence at the outset of a consideration of our LORD’s immanence* is supported by scriptural parallels. The most obvious example is Isaiah 57:15: 1A. He has a transcendent manifestation of glory above (Isaiah in introducing the LORD focuses upon His transcendence); 1B. He is separate in position: “Thus says the high and lifted up One”; 2B. His is separate in existence: “who perpetually exists”; 3B. He is separate in character: “whose name is holy”; 2A. He has an immanent manifestation of grace below (the LORD in speaking focuses upon His own immanence); *1B. He is near but without compromise: “I dwell in a high and holy place”; 2B. He is near with grace: “and with the crushed and lowly in spirit”; 3B. He is near with purpose: “in order to revive…”
25. The ultimate proof of this came in the Incarnation.
26. Elmer A. Leslie, The Psalms (New York: Abingdon, 1949) 192.
27. Allen, Psalms 101–150, 99.
28. Craigie, “Psalm 113” 70.
29. “Hallel,” Encyclopedia Judaica 7:1198–99.
30. Ibid. On the so-called Egyptian Hallel, cf. Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (trans. by D. R. Ap-Thomas; Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 1:3.
31. On the Passover setting of “The Last Supper,” see J. Behm, “κλάω,” TDNT 3:732–34, and J. Jeremias, “πάσχα,” TDNT 5:896–904.
32. Leslie, The Psalms 192–93.
33. Craigie, “Psalm 113” 70.
34. J. J. Stewart Perowne, The Book of Psalms (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1966) 1:322. The 1 Samuel 2 parallels are not an automatic indication of a postexilic date for Ps 113; cf. John T. Willis, “The Song of Hannah and Psalm 113, ” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35/2 (Apr 1973) 154.
35. Craigie, “Psalm 113” 71.
36. See Sacon in OTA 10/1 (Feb 1987) 65. There is no solid evidence for suggesting that both occurrences are later liturgical additions (e.g. Buttenweiser, The Psalms 348). Additionally, the placement of the final הַלְלוּ יָץ before Ps. 114 (LXX 113) in the LXX is incorrect. Consequently, two of the twenty-four occurrences of the formula הַלְלוּ יָץ bracket this great hymn.
37. Buttenwieser, The Psalms 348.
38. If the hallel pattern of Ps 113:1 is designated as a, b, c, then the corresponding hallel exhortations of Ps. 135:1 reflect an a, c, b order.
39. For some of the most important ones, note H. Ringgren, “הלל hll I and II,” TDOT 3:406; and L. J. Coppes, “הָלַל II,” TWOT 1:217.
40. TDOT 3:404; Coppes adds, from an overall assessment of הלל, that “belief and joy are inextricably intertwined” (TWOT 1:217).
41. Ringgren notes that the summons to praise with הלל is almost always in the plural being associated with the community, while הודה is generally singular being associated with the individual (TDOT 3:408). Cf. Coppes’ discussion of the propriety of such a corporate response (TWOT 1:217).
42. LXX tradition takes יהוה as the object of הַלְלוּ, thereby construing the עַבְדֵי as an independent vocative (i.e. as if it were עֲבָדִים). As Allen notes in the reference to this tradition, “Probably at some stage abbreviation…has been assumed” [emphasis mine] (Psalms 101–150 99).
43. W. Zimmerli and J. Jeremias, “παῖς θεοῦ,” Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT] 5:475, n. 122.
44. A. Cohen, The Psalms, Soncino books of the Bible (London: Soncino, 1945) 378; in the light of v. 3, Cohen widens the scope of inclusion, commenting “the call is made to all, Israelites and Gentiles, who acknowledge God” (ibid.). On the other hand, some would restrict עַבְדֵי יהוה to the Levitical circle. Both Allen and Anderson entertain this option; however, they commendably opt for the more comprehensive interpretation (see Psalms 101–150 99, and Psalms 2:780, respectively).
45. E.g. its occurrences in 2 Kgs 10:18–24 and Jesus’ association of the twin concepts in Matt 4:10 (referring to Deut 6:13).
46. Anderson, Psalms 2:780; for a basic survey, see W. C. Kaiser, “עָבַד,” TWOT 2:639–41.
47. W. C. Kaiser, “ם,” TWOT 2:934. Kaiser documents his conclusion with 1 Sam 25:25, among other passages.
48. Ibid.; cf. Delitzsch, Psalms 3:204–05. Anderson corroborates, noting that אֶת־םיהוה “comprises primarily the whole self-revelation of Yahweh to his people; the phrase may be a circumlocution for ‘Yahweh’“ (Psalms 2:780). Kidner’s reference to “the Revealed” is also telling (Psalms 73–150 401).
49. D. N. Freedman, M. P. O’Connor, and H. Riggren, “יהוה,” TDOT 5:500.
50. Ibid., 5:513. Cf. Payne’s conclusions in “הָוָה II,” J. B. Payne, TWOT 1:210–12; contra. some of R. L. Harris’ editorial comments within Payne’s article.
51. Allen, Psalms 101–150 101.
52. For a survey, see J. Scharbert, “ברךְ,” TDOT 2:284–88; for a condensed presentation, see J. N. Oswalt, “בָּרַךְ,” TWOT 1:132–33.
53. Anderson, Psalms 2:780.
54. For occurrences of this identical compound, cf. Pss 115:18; 121:8; 125:2; 131:3; Isa 9:6; 59:21; Micah 4:7; and for similar compounds, cf. Pss 41:14; 90:2; 103:17; 106:48; Jer 7:7; 1 Chr 16:36; 29:10.
55. BDB, 763.
56. Anderson, Psalms 2:780.
57. Cf. BDB, 99–100, 280–81. See also this compound prepositional phrase in Ps 50:1; Mal 1:11.
58. A. F. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: University Press, 1906) 678.
59. Cf. the occurrences of the pual participle from הלל in Pss. 18:4; 48:2; 96:4; 145:3.
60. J. Herrmann and H. Greeven, “εὔχομαι,” TDNT 2:786; for some discussion see TDOT 3:409.
61. A. Bowling, “רוּם,” TWOT 2:837.
62. Note the interesting juxtaposition of the roots רום and שׁפל in Ps 138:6; cf. Ps 113:4a with 113:6a ff.
63. Note the parallelism between רָם and the root נשׂא in both of these verses from Isaiah.
64. For some pertinent observations, see Robert Baker Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973) 35.
65. Cf. רָם with עַל־כָּל הָעַמִּים in Ps. 99:2.
66. J. N. Oswalt, “כָּד,” TWOT 1:427.
67. Anderson, Psalms 2:781.
68. For a concise summary of the conjectural emendations and transpositions which have been suggested in vv. 5–6 of the MT, see Allen, Psalms 101–150 99, n. 6a. His first observation (i.e. no transpositions) is preferable, his last is permissible, and the others are unacceptable.
69. Cf. Anderson, Psalms 2:781, who draws attention to Jer 24:7; 30:22; and 31:1.
70. Consequently, amidst a recapitulation of God’s transcendence (v. 5), the stage is set for a concentration upon His immanence (vv. 6–9).
71. On the hiphil expressing action in a definite direction see, once again, GKC 350 (para. 114n).
72. R. Hentschke, “גָּבַץ,” TDOT 2:356–60.
73. Ibid., 2:357–58; note the textual documentation cited for both assertions.
74. Ibid., 2:358; concerning the theological significance of גָּבַץ, Hamilton appropriately notes that “God’s position is said to be ‘on high’ (Ps. 113:5; Job 22:12) and his ways are ‘higher’ than those of mankind (Isa. 55:9)” (V. P. Hamilton, “גָּבַץ,” TWOT 1:146).
75. Cf. Anderson, Psalms 2:781.
76. See the discussion above under syntactical enhancements.
77. Delitzsch, Psalms 3:205.
78. In reference to שָׁפַל, Austel notes that “though the idea ‘be low’ in the physical sense underlies the verb and its derivatives, its most important use is in the figurative sense of ‘abasement,’ ‘humbling,’ ‘humility’“ (H. J. Austel, “שָׁפַל,” TWOT 2:950). An examination of the roots רום and שׁפל in Ps 138:6a would be appropriate here.
79. In light of these particular texts, note the appropriateness of the illustration in Ps 113:9.
80. BDB, 907–8.
81. Cf. Anderson, Psalms 2:781.
82. Allen, Psalms 101–150 101.
83. Kidner, Psalms 73–150 402. There are no compelling reasons to construe these illustrations corporately as a reference to Zion according to targumic tradition (e.g. Cohen, Psalms 378; and Buttenwieser, The Psalms 248).
84. For other combinations of דָּל and אֶבְיוֹן in various contextual settings, see 1 Sam 2:8; Isa 14:30; 25:4; Amos 4:1; 8:6; Pss 72:13; 82:4; Prov 14:31; Job 5:15–16; etc. Commenting upon this particular combination in our psalm, Botterweck concludes that “according to the context, the dal and the ʾebhyon belong to the same group as the feeble, hungry, poor, and godly” (P. J. Botterweck, “אֶבְיוֹן,” TDOT 1:40).
85. For a good review of the humiliation of such people along with God’s interest in them, see W. Grundmann, “tapeinw,” TDNT 8:9–10.
86. H. J. Fabry, “דָּל,” TDOT 3:219.
87. L. J. Coppes, “דָּלַל,” TWOT 1:190. Coppes concludes that “we might consider dal as referring to one of the lower classes in Israel” (ibid.).
88. TDOT 1:36; Botterweck’s whole survey is illuminating (ibid., 36–37).
89. Cf. L. J. Coppes, “אֶבְיוֹן,” TWOT 1:4–5.
90. Cf. “The dallim Under the Protection of Yahweh, the King, and His Fellow Men (Psalms)” in TDOT 3:226–30; also notice Allen’s New Testament applications (Psalms 101–150 101–102).
91. Delitzsch, Psalms 3:205.
92. BDB, 1046.
93. Delitzsch, Psalms 3:205.
94. Anderson, Psalms 2:781–82.
95. Cf. BDB, 878–79, 927; the hiphils from קוּם and רוּם are near synonyms as shown by their parallelism here. Interestingly, since מְקִימִי is synonymously related to יָרִים, it not only relates semantically to God’s description as רָם in v. 4 (cf. the previous discussion under semantical enhancements), but also conceptually to the root גבה in v. 5 (cf. R. Hentschke, “גָּבַץ,” TDOT 2:357–58, for a general discussion of these synonyms). In reference to קוּם with God as subject, Coppes observes that “the word may denote his creative, saving, and judging action” (L. J. Coppes, “קוּם,” TWOT 2:792); cf. A. Oepke, “ἐγείρω,” TDNT 2:334.
96. A. Bowling, “רוּם,” TWOT 2:838.
97. BDB, 443.
98. Most emend the final י of the MT to ו based largely on LXX and Syriac tradition (e.g. GKC, 254 [par. 90n]), but there are other options: Dahood takes it as a “third-person suffix -y” (Psalms III: 101–150 130); Delitzsch says, “ver. 8 shows how our Ps. cxiii in particular delights in this ancient i, where it is even affixed to the infinitive as an ornament” (Psalms 3:204); and Buttenwieser argues, “Though Gr. reads lĕhōshîbō, the reading of the Hebrew is equally correct: according to this reading the objects of vs. 7 are to be construed also with lĕhōshîbî, being a case of brachylogy” (The Psalms 249).
99. The two occurrences of עִם in v. 8 balance the two occurrences of מִן in v. 7. עִם in such contexts emphasizes “fellowship and companionship” (BDB, 767).
100. L. J. Coppes, “נָדַב,” TWOT 2:555. His brief summary of the major synonyms of נָדִיב is quite informative (ibid.).
101. Kirkpatrick, The Book of Psalms 679.
102. TDOT 3:228.
103. Cf. other occurrences of the adj. עָקָר in Gen 11:30; 25:21; 29:31; Judg 13:2–3; 1 Sam 2:5; and Job 24:21.
104. Anderson, Psalms 2:782.
105. E.g. BDB, 443; Buttenweiser, The Psalms 349; Delitzsch, Psalms 3:206; etc.
106. Again, note the causative verbal from יָשַׁב (i.e. מוֹשִׁבִי, v. 9; cf. לְהוֹשִׁיבִי, v. 8).
107. Anderson, Psalms 2:782.
108. Artur Weiser, The Psalms: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 707.