GOD AS A DOG 41

GOD AS A DOG

METAPHORICAL ALLUSIONS IN PSALM 59

INTRODUCTION

The present paper will explore some of the animal metaphors em-
ployed in the so-called psalms of imprecation, especially those that use
broad metaphorical statements in which the enemy (either personal or
civil) is spoken of as a wild animal of some sort, and particular focus is
placed on mouth/jaws related dangers inherent in both – ‘enemy lies are
sharp teeth’. At the same time, the so-called imprecatory or cursing
psalms1 are designated such because they appear to invite God in one
gruesome form or another to do something about the enemy, to eliminate
him/her/them by violent means. It would appear, however, that the
psalmists have employed ‘implied metaphorical language’ in this regard
as a means to associate terminology and behaviour with the deity that
would have been otherwise considered inappropriate. Psalm 59 is the
example par excellence of such a psalm. It clearly metaphorises the en-
emy as a pack of wild dogs, marauding the streets of a city at night
while, albeit less explicitly, inviting God to respond to the enemy as a
wild dog would towards its prey. Degrees of explicitness in this
metaphorising process will be outlined and an endeavour will be made
to discern why the authors of Psalm 59 resorted to such figurative lan-
guage in expressing hostile and often violent desires towards his enemy.

METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURE –
THE STRUCTURE OF METAPHORICAL STATEMENTS2

I believe P.W. Macky is correct when he insists that metaphors

are not words as such but rather speech acts in which an author/spea-
ker employs words in a metaphorical way and to a particular end,

1. Traditionally, the psalms of imprecation or cursing psalms include Pss 7, 35, 58,
59, 69, 83, 109, 139 although this is by no means a definitive list. The present study fo-
cuses on Psalm 59.
2. For a more in depth study see B. DOYLE, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically
Speaking. A Study of the Use, Function and Significance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27
(BETL, 151), Leuven, 2000, esp. pp. 49-144.
42 B. DOYLE

namely the intention of getting over his or her meaning, what Macky
calls the ‘speaker’s meaning’ to his or her audience3. Of the ‘poten-
tial’ uses of a word, a speaker ultimately selects an ‘actual use’ and it
is the task of the interpreter of those words to endeavour, in our
case thousands of years later, to determine the speaker’s meaning via the
various ‘windows’ into that meaning offered by the words he or she ac-
tually used4. He also insists that this is a creative task, one in which we
are invited to reconstruct a sort of ‘replica’ in our own minds of the
speaker’s meaning in an effort to understand it (the main task of
exegesis?): “… understanding is a task for the imagination, guided by
the store of standard word uses, standard sentence structures, and
standard ways of meaning which the intellect has catalogued”5. It is im-
perative, therefore, that we see the words employed by the author in
their broader literary context. The term ‘rock’ is not as such a metaphor
for God but it can be employed by a speaker in a metaphorical way
within a larger statement in order to convey his or her meaning about
God. We gain albeit limited access to that meaning by opening the win-
dows provided by single words, by examining their potential meanings
and endeavouring to determine their actual meaning in the context of a
particular speech act. Ultimately, therefore, part of the task of analysing
metaphorical language is rooted in word study, the close examination of
the words employed by the author/speaker and their potential meanings.
Since we do not have any native speakers at our disposal we are obliged
to resort to the use of lexica in this regard (fully aware of their limita-
tions), especially those that determine the meanings of words from their
contexts. Just such an analysis of a number of terms will constitute an
important part of the present contribution. We will see that the author of
Ps 59 employed a variety of words that have potential associations with
a particular semantic field, namely that of wild animals stalking their
prey.

3. P.W. MACKY, The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought. A Method for Inter-
preting the Bible (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity, 19), Lewiston – Queenston
– Lampeter, 1990, pp. 8-25. Cf. E.F. KITTAY – A. LEHRER, Semantic Fields and the Struc-
ture of Metaphor, in Studies in Language 5 (1981) 31-63.
4. Some would regard the attempt to determine the author’s meaning as an impossibil-
ity, others as a futile endeavour. The present author is inclined to believe that the process
of investigation into the author’s meaning is important and that it can open windows onto
a text that were intentionally integrated by the poet into his/her work. In the last analysis,
however, what the exegete sees through the open windows is as much if not more deter-
mined by his or her own perspective than the ingredients provided by the ancient, albeit
evolved, text.
5. MACKY, Centrality (n. 3), pp. 20-21.
 GOD AS A DOG 43

A Definition of Metaphor
Our reading of the metaphorical language in Ps 59 will have its roots
in the definition of metaphor proposed by Daniel Bourguet in his mono-
graph Des métaphores de Jérémie: “… le fait de décrire intention-
nellement, de manière médiate ou immédiate, un métaphorisé dans les
termes d’un métaphorisant qui lui ressemble et qui appartient à une autre
isotopie”6.
Three terms in Bourguet’s definition require further explanation:
métaphorisé, métaphorisant, and isotopie. The term métaphorisé is
roughly equivalent to the ‘tenor’ or the ‘principle/primary subject’ as
Max Black would put it. The term métaphorisant on the other hand is
akin to the ‘vehicle’ or Black’s ‘subsidiary/secondary subject’7. The
term isotopie refers to a sector of vocabulary associated with a particular
semantic field. Following Bourguet’s definition, therefore, a biblical
metaphorical statement must employ two distinct isotopes, two distinct
domains of knowledge, that of the métaphorisé and that of the méta-
phorisant, both of which exhibit some form of resemblance, some point
of similarity. Distinction in isotope is thus an essential dimension of
metaphor. Where there is no distinction in isotope one is probably deal-
ing with simple comparison or indeed simile. What Bourguet refers to as
the foyer or recognisable (to the recipient) point of cross-reference is
likewise necessary in order to ensure the adequate functioning of the
metaphorical statement. An explicit point of cross-reference in one
metaphorical statement, moreover, would appear to have the capacity to
represent a further less explicit cross-reference with respect to a second-
ary metaphorical statement. We shall see below that this is very much
the case with respect to Psalm 59.
Since Max Black’s studies were published in the sixties and seventies,
commentators have tended to speak of metaphorical speech as an ‘inter-
action’ between distinct isotopes or knowledge domains whereby one
isotope (in our case the métaphorisé) is understood/structured in terms
of the other (the métaphorisant). Exploiting his/her poetic skills, the bib-
lical author laid down structural foundations whereby isotopes, which
explicitly differ yet enjoy some degree of cross-reference, are allowed to
encounter one another in an interaction that ultimately informs the
reader/listener concerning, at least for the most part, the métaphorisé.

6. D. BOURGUET, Des métaphores de Jérémie (ÉB, 9), Paris, 1987, esp. p. 10.
Bourguet’s definition is a refinement of that proposed by Paul Ricœur.
7. See M. BLACK, Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy,
Ithaca, NY, 21984, pp. 19-43.
44 B. DOYLE

Structured Encounter of Isotopes

It is at this point that we have to turn our attention in brief to biblical
Hebrew poetry as an ancient vehicle for metaphorical speech. The
study of biblical poetry has been something of a growth industry in the
past decades, expanding both in quantity and complexity. Excellent
and innovative manuals focusing on the variety, elegance and ultimate
function of Hebrew poetical technique have been published in recent
years and have become primary sources for biblical exegetes in their
efforts to understand and explain the biblical texts8. Few, however,
deal with metaphor as an aspect of poetry in any comprehensive way. In
a recent article written on the subject entitled On Reading Biblical
Poetry: The Role of Metaphor9, however, Adele Berlin suggests that
the study of metaphor should constitute a “‘good starting-point’ in the
search for reading strategies…” with respect to Hebrew poetry. De-
finitions of metaphor, albeit from exegetical sources, speak of poetry
perceiving the world metaphorically “through relations of likeness
and difference”10. This reminds Berlin of her own understanding of
parallelism in Hebrew poetry, the juxtaposition of poetic “lines that
are, from a linguistic perspective, equivalent on one level while being
different on another”, as being rooted in ‘equivalence and contrast’11.
In Berlin’s opinion, “…the combination of likeness and difference is
the essence of the relationship between parallel lines” in biblical
poetry12. The similarity between the roots of parallelism and the roots
of metaphor leads her to suggest that they are two sides of the same
coin. In fact, she goes so far as to say that for her “the basic form of
metaphor is parallelism, in the sense of the contiguous or syntagmatic
arrangement of paradigmatic elements such that ‘unlikes’ become
alike. The inevitable conclusion is that both parallelism and metaphor
are the defining characteristics of biblical poetry”13. As I understand
it, therefore, Berlin is suggesting that the parallel line is the location
8. Cf., for example, W.G.E. WATSON, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew
Poetry (JSOT SS, 170), Sheffield, 1994; ID., Classical Hebrew Poetry. A Guide to Its
Techniques (JSOT SS, 26), Sheffield, 21995 and L. ALONSO SCHÖKEL, A Manual of He-
brew Poetics, trans. A. Graffy (Subsidia Biblica, 11), Rome, 1988.
9. A. BERLIN, On Reading Biblical Poetry: The Role of Metaphor, in J.A. EMERTON
(ed.), Congress Volume, Cambridge, 1995 (SupplVT, 66), Leiden, 1997, pp. 25-36.
10. F. LANDY, Poetics and Parallelism. Some Comments on James Kugel’s The Idea
of Biblical Poetry, in JSOT 28 (1984) 61-87.
11. Cf. also Bourguet’s isotopic distinction coupled with core/foyer resemblance (Des
métaphores [n. 6], pp. 10, 60ff.).
12. BERLIN, On Reading Biblical Poetry (n. 9), p. 27.
13. Ibid., p. 28.
 GOD AS A DOG 45

par excellence for the metaphorical event to take place, however one
wishes to explain it. Thus distinct yet similar isotopes are introduced
to one another via juxtaposition of parallel lines/expressions and allowed
to interact in an event whereby a métaphorisé is structured in terms
of a métaphorisant. In her important work on parallelism in biblical
poetry, Berlin describes the phenomenon under four headings: gram-
matical, lexical, semantic and phonological14. One can agree with her
that parallelism of one form or another lies at the core of biblical
poetic composition. It is equally fare to say, however, that virtually
every stylistic technique in biblical poetry boils down to some sort of
parallel repetition based on one or other degree of similarity and
difference15. The métaphorisé and the métaphorisant, therefore, do
not have to be present in immediately parallel lines. Concentric struc-
tures16, inclusios17 and other forms of external parallelism, for example,
may set them far apart yet still present both in such a way as to
determine that one is read in terms of the other18. Another frequent
feature of biblical Hebrew poetry is word-play, a stylistic technique
which has its roots in phonological (and orthographical) similarities
(and semantic differences) such as assonance, consonance, rhyme etc.
In such cases, a type of parallelism is established on the basis of
phonological similarity, allowing two distinct isotopes to ‘meet’ and
‘interact’, allowing a métaphorisant to structure a métaphorisé19.
Metaphorical statements are thus supported by the structuring features
of biblical Hebrew poetry: distinct yet similar isotopes encounter one
another in the poetical context, inviting the reader to explore the interac-
tion between them and to take cognisance of what this interaction is en-
deavouring to say both explicitly and implicitly.

14. A. BERLIN, The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism, Bloomington, IN, 1985, pp. 54-
56.
15. One ought to bear in mind that repetition in one form or another (together with
isotopic distinction) lies at the heart of Bourguet’s understanding of the core of a meta-
phorical statement.
16. Cf. WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry (n. 8), p. 187.
17. Ibid, pp. 284-287.
18. Renkema’s commentary on the book of Lamentations relies heavily on ‘re-
sponses’ (parallelisms) at various levels (song/canto/sub-canto etc.) within and through-
out a single book such as Lamentations. Cf. J. RENKEMA, Lamentations, trans. B. Doyle
(HCOT), Leuven, 1998.
19. A more detailed study of the same phenomenon can be found in: B. DOYLE, How
Do Isotopes Meet? A Rare Word-Play Metaphor in Isa. 25:7a-8a, in K. FEYAERTS (ed.),
The Bible Through Metaphor and Translation. A Cognitive Semantic Perspective, Bern,
2002, pp. 155-186.
46 B. DOYLE

PSALM 59: WORKING TRANSLATION & COLOMETRIC SUBDIVISION20

1 For the leader; do not destroy; for David a miktam; when Saul
sent [spies] and they observed the house [of David] in order to kill
him.

2a Deliver me from my enemies, my God

2b to those who stand up against me make me [too] high. 3+2
3a Deliver me from those who do evil
3b and from men of blood save me. 3+3
4a For behold they lie in wait for my life,
4b they excite fear on my account, the wicked. 3+3
4c I have not done wrong and I have not sinned, YHWH,
5a [I am] without iniquity. They run and make ready. 3+3
5b Rise up to meet me and see,
6a you, YHWH-God of hosts, God of Israel. 3+4
6b Wake up to punish all the nations.
6c Do not be merciful to all treacherous evildoers. 3+3

7a They return at evening.

7b They howl like dogs.
7c They prowl about the city. 2+2+2
8a See, they foam at their mouths,
8b barks of rage on their lips.
8c Indeed, who is listening? 2+2+2

9c But you, YHWH, you laugh at them,

9b you deride all the nations. 3+2
10a My strength, to you I shall sing,
10b Yes, God is my fortress. 3+2
11a My God, his love precedes me.
11b God will let me look on those who stalk me. 3+3

12a Do not kill them, lest they forget, my people!

12b Drive them abroad by your strength!
12c Bring them down, O Lord our shield! 3+3+2
13a The sin of his mouth, the word of his lips.
13b Let them be trapped by their pride.
13c For the curses and the lies they utter. 2+2+3
14a Finish (them) off with wrath!
14b Finish (them) off that they exist no more, 2+2
14c that they know that God rules in Jacob
14d to the ends of the earth. 4+2

15a They return at evening.

15b They howl like dogs
15c They prowl about the city. 2+2+2

20. Based on BHS/NRSV and own colometric subdivision.

 GOD AS A DOG 47

16a They, they rove about for food

16b If not satisfied they growl. 3+3

17a But I, I shall sing your strength,

17b and I shall rejoice in the morning of your love. 3+3
17c For you are a fortress to me
17d and a refuge on the day of my trouble. 3+3
18a My strength, to you I shall sing praise.
18b For God is my fortress,
18c My merciful God. 3+2+2

POETIC FEATURES OF PSALM 59

Psalm 59 is generally considered to be a lament psalm with a re-

frain21. Perhaps the refrain is the psalm’s most evident structuring poeti-
cal feature22. A variety of other poetical features are noted in Watson’s
monographs and elsewhere. Watson argues, for example, that the entire
psalm is an example of chiasmus in long passages23. Likewise, Tate24
follows Stuhlmueller25 in this regard who observes overall balance
within the psalm:
vv. 2-6 vv. 12-14 Call for help, lament and prayer
vv. 7-8 vv. 15-16 Refrain about dogs – one’s enemies
vv. 9-11 vv. 17-18 Refrain about confidence in God
Watson also notes the use of tricola26, half-line internal parallelism27,
end rhyme28, gender reversal: v. 13a ‘for slip (f) of mouth (m)' // ‘for

21. So the majority of commentators, including H. GUNKEL, Die Psalmen. Übersetzt

und erklärt (Göttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament), Göttingen, 1926,
pp. 252ff.; L. JACQUET, Les psaumes et le cœur de l’homme. Étude textuelle, littéraire
et doctrinale, vol. 2, Gembloux, 1977, pp. 253ff.; L. SABOURIN, Le livres des psaumes.
Traduit et interprété, Montreal – Paris, 1988, pp. 274ff.; M.E. TATE, Psalms 51–
100 (WBC, 20), Dallas, TX, 1990, pp. 94-96; S.L. TERRIEN, The Psalms: Strophic Struc-
ture and Theological Commentary (Eerdmans Critical Commentary), Grand Rapids, MI,
2002.
22. See my treatment thereof in the Vetus Testamentum 54 (2004) 61-82 in which I
explore the metaphorisation of the enemy as a pack of wild dogs, with the core of the
metaphorical statement turning around the structure of the refrain – and the metaphorical
statement as a whole bringing the conceptual terminology of human lies and schemes into
contact with physical terms related to animals such as mouth, jaws, teeth etc.
23. WATSON, Classical Hebrew Poetry (n. 8), p. 207.
24. TATE, Psalms 51–100 (n. 21), p. 96.
25. K. STUHLMUELLER, Psalms 1 (Old Testament Message, 21), Wilmington, DE,
1983, p. 275.
26. WATSON, Traditional Techniques (n. 8), p. 99.
27. Ibid., p. 168.
28. Ibid., p. 172.
48 B. DOYLE

word (m) of lips (f)’29, which ultimately represents poetic justice in a

structural fashion. There can be little doubt that the psalmist makes use
of a variety of structuring poetic devices in his work, with the refrain in
the foreground thereof. At the same time, however, the said structuring
features also provide the framework for non-structuring poetic devices
such as word-play. The metaphorisation of the enemy as a pack of wild
dogs (‫ )ככלב‬prowling the city at night in search of food – ‫( אכל‬v. 16a) –
echoes the repeated imperative ‫‘( כלה‬finish off’, ‘devour’: direct ad-
dress to God) in v.14ab. The poet would thus appear to be making use of
word-play based on the phonological similarity between ‫אכל‬, the syno-
nymous ‫ כלה‬and perhaps even the comparison ‫ככלב‬. This feature serves
to underline the thematic significance of the (first) refrain for the poem
as a whole and to relate the psalmist’s observations concerning his en-
emy with his request to God to ‘finish off’ his enemy.
This leads us to the core of the present study in which we will focus in
particular on the so-called cursing element of Psalm 59, namely vv. 12a-
14d. While it is evident that the primary explicit metaphorical statement
being employed by the author relates the enemy via the ‘words/lies of
his mouth’ to a pack of wild dogs with their ‘foaming mouths’ and
‘barks of rage’, it would appear that the psalmist is also employing a
secondary metaphorical statement, in this instance inviting the reader via
metaphor to perceive God as a wild dog stalking its prey (the psalmist’s
enemy) and moving in for an albeit ‘slow’ kill.
Commentators repeatedly focus on what they consider to be an appar-
ent contradiction in this segment of the psalm between ‘Do not kill’ in v.
12a and ‘Annihilate completely’ in v. 13. Kraus proposes a facilitative
interpretation by reading the said verses as a sequence of events (parallel
to the sequence of complaints in vv. 3&4)30. God is not to kill yet – oth-
erwise his deeds would be immediately forgotten. Better to string it out a
little: first scatter, then throw down and then annihilate. I am inclined to
agree that there is a string of events here, but I am also convinced that
the apparent contradiction between v. 12a and v. 14a is open to an alter-
native interpretation. It will become evident at the very least that there is
no need to change the negative ‘Don’t’ (‫ )אל‬into God (‫ )אל‬in order to
make this a positive statement ‘God kill them’31. There is likewise no

29. Ibid., p. 224.
30. H.-J. KRAUS, Psalms 1–59. A Commentary, trans. H.C. Oswald, Minneapolis, MN,
1988, p. 542.
31. Cf., for example, M. DAHOOD, Psalms II (Anchor Bible Commentary, 17), Garden
City, NY, 1986, p. 71; R.J. CLIFFORD, Psalms 1–72 (Abingdon Old Testament Commen-
taries), Nashville, TN, 2002, p. 280 and others, including NAB.
 GOD AS A DOG 49

need to introduce a delaying term such as ‘yet’ in order to restore some

kind of logic to the text32. Contradiction and lack of logic are among the
signs of the presence of metaphor. The text appears to contradict itself at
first sight but when it is read as a metaphorical statement about the way
God should destroy the enemy – like a wild dog stalking, scattering,
tearing down, devouring alive – then it begins to make sense: God is
being asked to deal with the enemy on a tit for tat basis33.

METAPHORICAL STATEMENTS IN PSALM 59

The particular context of the psalmist is presented at the beginning

and end of the psalm. He is being subjected to the unjust lies of his en-
emy while he himself is innocent (vv. 4-5); the enemy continue(s) to lie
(this time metaphorised as wild dogs, vv. 15-16) while the psalmist
gives praise to God (vv. 17-18). Within this broader context the author
employs both explicit and implicit metaphorical statements.

First explicit metaphorical statement

The primary foyer34 or area of cross-reference in the structured en-
counter of isotopes in Psalm 59 turns around the aspects of threat and
danger associated with the isotope of wild animals and that of the en-
emy. The enemy confront the psalmist with evil (v. 2), are ‘men of
blood’ (v. 3), lie in wait (v. 4), excite fear (v. 4), run and make ready
(v. 5). The potential cross-referencing of these features of the enemy
with the features of the wild dogs howling, prowling, foaming at the
mouth, barking with rage (vv.7-8) is focused in verse 13 on one specific
element of cross-reference, namely the mouth/lips/lies of the enemy and
the mouth/lips/rage of the wild dog. Like a wild dog prowling the city at
night, the psalmist invites us to understand his enemy as a dangerous
threat to his life. He then goes on to delineate the content of the threat of
the enemy as the sin of the mouth, lies, pride, curses and invites us to
read this content in light of the mouth of the wild dog, foaming, aggres-
sive, raging. The lies of the enemy are the barks of the wild dog, his
pride and curses the rage of the wild dog. Words bite, lies destroy.

32. Cf., for example, KRAUS, Psalms 1–59 (n. 30), pp. 542-543; TATE, Psalms 51–100
(n. 21), p. 94.
33. Jacquet employes the expression ‘Lex Talionis’; cf. Les psaumes (n. 21), p. 240.
34. The term foyer is used by Bourguet to designate the point of cross-reference be-
tween the isotope of the métaphorisé and that of the métaphorisant, their similarity in dif-
ference; cf. BOURGUET, Des métaphores (n. 6), pp. 54ff.
50 B. DOYLE

Without attempting to employ the metaphorisation of the enemy as a

wild dog as a means to identify the enemy in Psalm 59, the fact that this
and the remaining imprecatory psalms consistently associate the enemy
with verbal danger and thereby metaphorise the enemy by way of the
same foyer or area of cross-reference (mouth//jaws) as a wild animal al-
lows us at least to interpret the animal/enemy metaphor in Psalm 59 as a
sort of meta-metaphor for the enemy, one that extends into the other im-
precatory psalms and perhaps indeed throughout the Hebrew bible.

Second explicit metaphorical statement: God as protection

The second metaphorical statement clearly brings two distinct iso-
topes into an encounter via the overall concentric structure of the psalm:
the isotope of the divine and the isotope of ‘protection’.
v. 1 – Deliver/God
v. 2 – Deliver
vv. 9, 10 – God is my strength / my fortress
v. 17 – (your) strength / steadfastness / (you are) fortress / refuge
v. 18 – My strength / God is fortress / God is steadfastness
Built upon a concentric pattern in which vv. 1-2 are echoed in vv. 16-
17 with vv. 9 and 10 serving as the central and focal point, the psalm
brings a series of terms and concepts from the isotope of protection into
association with the isotope of the divine, culminating in the bold meta-
phorical statement in vv.9-10: God is my strength/fortress35. The psalm-
ist thus invites us to envisage the divinity in terms of a protective tower/
mighty fortress. Such metaphorisation of the divine is also relatively fre-
quent in the psalms (e.g. Pss 2, 9, 18, 20, 48, 62, 69, 91 etc.) and not
unusual in the Hebrew bible as a whole (e.g. Is 25,12; 33,16; Jr 48,1;
2Sam 22,3).

Implied metaphorical statement: God as a wild animal – God as a dog

Kirsten Nielsen’s unpublished study “I will be like a Lion…” The
Role of Animal Imagery in Old Testament Theology provides ample evi-
dence of the fact that (wild) animals are used to represent God in meta-
phorical statements (e.g. the lion in Hos 5,15.7-8; Am 1,2; 3,8). In the
so-called psalms of imprecation, however, the metaphorising use of the
animal isotope is almost exclusively associated with the enemy (Pss
7,2.5.15; 35,8.15.16; 58,4-5.6.8; 59,4.7.8; 109,3.10, 139,19). God is
portrayed rather as a hunter (Pss 7,12-13; 69,21-25), a judge (Pss 7,6-
11; 58,12; 69,27; 109), a fortress (Ps 59), one who pursues (Ps 35,2-6),

35. Considered by some to be the only metaphorical statement in the psalm.

 GOD AS A DOG 51

pursuing fire (Ps 83,13-15) etc. but not directly as a wild animal. Our
close reading of the metaphorical statements found in Psalm 59, how-
ever, reveals an implied encounter of the isotope of the divine and the
isotope of the wild dog brought about by a chain of direct and indirect
imperatives addressed for the most part to God in vv. 12-14. We already
noted that apparent contradiction in the verses in question may be an in-
tentional ploy on the part of the author to read the text metaphorically.
Before we proceed with a study of the terminology employed and its as-
sociation with God, we will first offer a brief exploration of the phenom-
enon of wild dogs and their behavioural patterns.
According to scientific zoological studies36, far beyond the capacities
of the present writer, the ancestor of the dog is the wolf. The same stud-
ies differentiate between different types of dog: domestic dogs (human
ownership), free-ranging dogs (free from particular human ownership
but still associated with one or other form of human settlement) and fe-
ral dogs (once domesticated, now living in the wild and completely in-
dependent of human settlements as a source of food). Feral dogs revert
to wolf behaviour (hunting in packs, attacking other animals [and occa-
sionally humans] for food) unless they have another source of food –
such as a nearby rubbish dump or a city dwelling. In Psalm 59, there is
apparently no food to be found in the city so the wild dogs are forced to
behave like wolves, hunting live prey in packs, selecting the straggler
from the pack and disabling it before devouring it alive. Many of us will
have seen images on TV of animals stalking their prey. When the prey is
larger than the hunter the usual procedure is to hunt the animal until it is
exhausted, single it out, disable it by attacking its legs, haul it to the
ground and eat – while the prey is still alive.
This hunting scenario of the wolf/feral dog I would maintain is played
out here in Ps 59 with God as its subject. God is indeed called not to kill
(‫ הרג‬kill, murder, used frequently in the context of war/revenge; used
mostly of humans killing other humans and less often of God killing hu-
mans; implication here is ‘Do not kill them as humans do!’37) but to
scatter (‫ נוע‬hiphil, make wander, unsteady, scatter; in Prov 5,6 and Lam
4,14, those who wander are unstable and blind – easy prey to the de-
vouring dog38) bring down (‫ ירד‬hiphil – literal meaning ‘bring down’,
‘take down’, ‘make fall’; often used in the hiphil form in theological
36. For a comprehensive study see, for example, J. SERPELL (ed.), The Domestic Dog.
Its Evolution, Behaviour and Interactions with People, Cambridge, 1995, esp. pp. 246-
256 (inc. lit.).
37. NIDOTTE, #1055-1057 (Domeris).
38. TDOT IX 293-295 (Ringgren). Note the use of the same verb with the wild dogs
as subject in the refrain in v.15b (in the qal following the qere in BHS).
52 B. DOYLE

contexts as part of a threat or curse39; frequently implies death and de-

struction40). The psalmist interrupts his direct address to God with a de-
scription of the lies/pride of the enemy as the ultimate cause of his being
‘trapped’ (‫ לכד‬niphal – be trapped – a verb used typically for trapping/
capturing animals – also used of individuals, groups, cities. The passive
niphal form is used in contexts in which the trapping of animals serves
as an image for the trapping of humans41). The psalmist returns to direct
address, calling upon God to ‘finish off’ the now weakened enemy (‫כלה‬
– carries the idea of completion but with negative connotations; the end
of a process and the process itself42). The evident phonetic parallel with
‫‘ אכל‬to eat’, however, suggests that we should read ‫ כלה‬in the context
as meaning ‘to devour, to eat alive’. Thus, the wild dogs spoken of in
our psalm may once have been domesticated animals, but now freed
from the confines of human ownership they revert to the characteristic
behaviour of their animal predecessors, the wolf. The direct and indirect
imperatives bring the terminology of the isotope into encounter with the
isotope of the divine rather than there being a verbal foyer, or a cross-
referenced use of the terminology in question for both God and the wild
dog. Word play (‫ )אכל – כלה‬and the association of the imprecation with
the refrain through the structure of the psalm serves to reinforce the en-
counter.

INTERPRETATIVE CONCLUSION

The manner with which wolves hunt and kill their prey is described in
great detail in the zoological literature. It would appear that the psalmist
in Psalm 59 was familiar with the phenomenon and that he called upon
the deity to destroy the enemy (ultimately to put an end to his lies) as a
wild dog would: to scatter, divide and conquer, bring to the ground and
devour alive. The metaphorisation of the enemy as wild animal – wild
dog –, a wolf with sharp teeth, draws its power from the enemy’s verbal
aggression (lies) and the physical aggression focussed on the jaws/teeth.
The example much used in the English speaking world to illustrate the
metaphorical process ‘man is a wolf’ ultimately lies at the root of this
biblical usage. The creative aspect of the biblical usage, however, is to
be found in its concentration on the oral isotope of both the human en-

39. NIDOTTE #3718 (Merrill).

40. TDOT VI 315-322 (Mayer).
41. NIDOTTE #4334 (Konkel).
42. NIDOTTE #3983, (Domeris/Van Dam).
 GOD AS A DOG 53

emy (lies, false witness) and the wild animal (consume – repeated). The
human enemy and his verbal misdemeanours towards the psalmist are
thus echoed in metaphorical animal language.
At the same time, however, it is evident that an additional process of
metaphorisation is at work in Psalm 59, one in which the isotope of the
wild dog/wolf is not brought into encounter with the human enemy but
rather with the divinity. Characteristic of the imprecatory psalms as a
whole, God is invited in each case to bring the enemy’s wickedness to
an end. Here and elsewhere this invitation is frequently couched in lan-
guage whereby the divinity is metaphorised as a judge, pursuer (mili-
tary), and punisher. In Psalm 59, however, the initial explicit meta-
phorisation of the divinity as a protector (tower, fortress) serves to a cer-
tain extent to conceal an implied metaphorisation of the divinity as a
wild animal, in casu a wild dog that has reverted to the behaviour of its
natural predecessor the wolf. Where the enemy is portrayed as a human
hunter in pursuit of his prey, God is metaphorised as a form of protec-
tion (often a shield, fortress, towering refuge). Where the enemy is
metaphorised as an animal stalking and attacking its prey then the meta-
phor serves to enable language in which the divinity is spoken of in un-
speakable terms, as an enemy to the enemy, as an enemy metaphorised
as an animal revealing its superiority to the psalmist’s enemy. In the last
analysis, the psalmist’s enemy reaps what he sows: his lies/barks of rage
turn on his own head, are the trap into which he falls. The ‘divine’ wild
dog intensifies the punishment. The psalmist is still alive in spite of his
enemy’s plans to kill him (v.3b – men of blood). The enemy is still
alive, albeit trapped by his own lies, but not for long. God is called upon
to attack like a wild dog/wolf, to bring the enemy to the ground, to kill
and devour (v.14b – that they exist no more). The concealed/implied
character of this metaphorical statement may have its foundations in a
‘negative’ residue of association between the God of Israel and the gods
of the nations and their ‘animal’ features.

Faculty of Theology Brian DOYLE

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Sint-Michielsstraat 6
B-3000 Leuven
Belgium