Eliphaz uses these rhetorical questions to argue that God is entirely self-sufficient and therefore Job’s righteousness or sin cannot affect Him, setting up his conclusion that Job’s suffering must indicate hidden sin rather than God’s injustice.

Job does not directly answer these questions. Instead, in Job 23, he expresses his desire to present his case before God himself, insisting he would be acquitted if he could only find God and argue his innocence face to face.

Eliphaz poses two parallel rhetorical questions to argue that God’s transcendence means He cannot be affected by human behavior. The Hebrew structure uses two different words for God’s potential benefit: chephets (pleasure, delight) and betsa (profit, gain). By asking rather than asserting, Eliphaz attempts to make Job draw the conclusion himself that God has no vested interest in human righteousness. This rhetorical strategy aims to dismantle Job’s defense by suggesting that if God gains nothing from righteousness, then Job’s suffering cannot be unjust divine caprice but must reflect hidden sin. The questions reveal a theology that, while emphasizing God’s transcendence, diminishes His covenant relationship with His people. Eliphaz’s error lies not in affirming God’s self-sufficiency but in denying that the self-sufficient God chooses to care deeply about human conduct and character.