Gravações do Trio Fragata no bandcamp

quinta-feira, 30 de abril de 2015

"who knows?"

"This basic text establishes first of all the extreme distante between human beings and God, and the identification of humanity with animals (which squares well with Gen. 1 and 2). The breath of life vivifies animal and human being alike. But the word here is ruah, well-known as an ambiguous term. Qohelet says nothing here about spirituality, humana beings bearing God's image, etc. Therefore, unquestionably, we are animals. After all, this conclusion does not strike me as so out of the ordinary: since humanity does not behave like the image of God, it is nothing more than an animal.
Our identity with animals is indicated by our common lot: death. A human being may have ruah, but he can in no way claim to be God's equal. He knows nothing of an afterlife, and this indicates his distance from God. Human beings wanted and established this distance, pretending to be equal with God! One wonders why Christians have been so scandalized by scientific hypotesis, including Charles Darwin's, considering they had Qohelet. Human beings and animals are subject to the same fate, just like the wise person and the fool (2:14), the righteous and the wicked, and the pure and impure ...(9:2). Their lot is identical: death. But this as nothing to do with destiny or fate.
Since we cannot fail to come up against death, we must question our identity with animals, who have the same lot, as we have already seen. But we cannot offer a definitive answer; we can only ask: "who knows?" (3:21). You cannot maintain that your spirit will experience a different fate (rising upward) from the life-breath of an animal (which will go downward). We can state nothing in this regard. The unquestionable difference between human beings and animals does not allow us to infer an absolute qualitative difference. Qohelet obliges us to limit ourselves to the question: "who knows?" No revelation can simplify this issue for us. All we have is God's work, this blockage, and this insoluble question. "


Jaques Ellul, Reason for Being - a Meditation on Ecclesiastes, (tr.) Eerdmans Pub., 1990, 222-223.

Sem comentários: