Elihu confronts Job with the shocking implications of his complaints. By framing it as a question, Elihu forces Job to acknowledge that his protests effectively condemn the very One who is both perfectly righteous and infinitely powerful. The interrogative form makes Job’s position appear presumptuous and dangerous.

Job offers no response to this question during Elihu’s speech. His eventual reply in Job 40:3-5 and 42:1-6 acknowledges his error in speaking beyond his understanding, effectively conceding Elihu’s point.

Elihu shifts from philosophical principle to direct accusation with this second question. The Hebrew structure places emphasis on the object, “him who is righteous and mighty”, making the absurdity unmistakable. The verb rasha (condemn, declare wicked) is particularly strong, suggesting more than disagreement but actual moral judgment. Elihu pairs tsaddiq (righteous) with kabbir (mighty) to demonstrate that God possesses both the moral authority and the power to govern rightly. A question rather than a statement allows Job to feel the weight of his position without Elihu appearing to directly accuse him of blasphemy. This rhetorical strategy shows Elihu’s sophistication; he makes Job confront the logical conclusion of his complaints. The question implies that condemning God reveals not divine injustice but human arrogance. Theologically, this anticipates God’s own response from the whirlwind, where he demonstrates both his wisdom and power as validation of his governance.