Job 20:7
A focused desk for reading, commentary, cross-references, original language notes, and your own observations.
Job 20:7
7 Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where is he?
Chapter Context
Job 20 is a wisdom dialogue chapter in the Old Testament that explores themes of worship, creation, love. Written during the patriarchal period (literary composition later), this chapter should be understood within its historical context: Ancient wisdom traditions often wrestled with the problem of suffering and divine justice.
The chapter can be divided into several sections:
- Verses 1-5: Introduction and setting the context
- Verses 6-12: Development of key themes
- Verses 13-20: Central message and teachings
- Verses 21-29: Conclusion and application
This chapter is significant because it contributes to the biblical metanarrative of redemption. When studying this passage, it's important to consider both its immediate context within Job and its broader place in the scriptural canon.
Verse Study
Job 20:7
7 Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung: they which have seen him shall say, Where is he?
Analysis
Yet he shall perish for ever like his own dung (כְּגֶלְלוֹ לָנֶצַח יֹאבֵד, keglelo lanetsach yoved)—Zophar delivers the book's most visceral, repulsive image: the wicked person perishes כְּגֶלְלוֹ (keglelo, 'like his dung/excrement'). The noun גָּלָל (galal) is animal dung, used for fuel but considered unclean. לָנֶצַח (lanetsach, 'forever, perpetually') intensifies the judgment: permanent rubbish.
They which have seen him shall say, Where is he? (רֹאָיו יֹאמְרוּ אַיּוֹ, ro'av yomru 'ayyo)—The wicked vanish so completely that witnesses ask אַיּוֹ ('ayyo, 'Where?')—an interrogative of absence. Zophar assumes Job's suffering proves him wicked, headed for oblivion. The irony: Job will be vindicated, remembered, and his words canonized, while Zophar's name means 'chirper'—insignificant noise.
Historical Context
The image of dung as worthlessness appears across Scripture. Paul considers his credentials 'dung' (σκύβαλον, skubalon) compared to knowing Christ (Philippians 3:8). Zophar weaponizes this metaphor against Job, but the book's resolution proves Zophar spoke 'dung'—his theology was the refuse, not Job's life.
Reflection
- How does Zophar's crude insult reveal the depths to which theological argumentation can sink?
- When have you seen people use Scripture's vivid language to wound rather than heal?
- What does it mean that Job's words were preserved as Scripture while Zophar's condemnation proved false?
Cross-References
- Parallel theme: Job 4:20, 7:10, 8:18, 14:10, 1 Kings 14:10, 2 Kings 9:37