引言：兩種存在主義脈絡
Introduction: Two Strands of Existentialism
談「存在主義與聖經的關係」之前，必須先釐清一個常被忽略的事實：存在主義並非鐵板一塊。
Before discussing “the relationship between existentialism and the Bible,” we must first clarify an often-overlooked fact: existentialism is not monolithic.
它至少有兩條脈絡——以齊克果（Søren Kierkegaard）為代表的有神論存在主義，和以薩特（Jean-Paul Sartre）、卡繆（Albert Camus）為代表的無神論存在主義。
It has at least two strands—theistic existentialism, represented by Søren Kierkegaard, and atheistic existentialism, represented by Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus.
前者認為人在焦慮與絕望中最終指向對神的信心之躍；後者則認為宇宙本無意義，人必須在虛空中自我創造價值。
The former holds that anxiety and despair ultimately point toward a leap of faith in God; the latter holds that the universe is inherently meaningless, and humans must create value out of the void.
這個區分至關重要，因為《聖經》與存在主義的關係不是單純的對抗，而是在診斷上高度共鳴，在處方上根本分歧。
This distinction is crucial, because the relationship between the Bible and existentialism is not simple opposition, but rather strong resonance in diagnosis, and fundamental divergence in prescription.
它精確診斷出人類存在的核心困境——荒誕、焦慮、死亡、自由——卻給出了一條與薩特截然不同、卻與齊克果遙相呼應的出路。若前篇文章聚焦於自由、自欺與人際關係，本篇則專注探討荒誕、死亡與苦難中的意義追尋，兩篇可視為同一系列的上下篇。
Scripture precisely diagnoses the core dilemmas of human existence—absurdity, anxiety, death, and freedom—yet offers a way out radically different from Sartre’s, though echoing Kierkegaard’s. Where the earlier essay in this series focused on freedom, self-deception, and interpersonal relationships, this piece turns to absurdity, death, and the pursuit of meaning amid suffering.
一、直面荒誕與虛無：《傳道書》的起點
I. Confronting Absurdity and Emptiness: The Starting Point of Ecclesiastes
存在主義常始於對世界「荒誕」的感受，這在《傳道書》開篇有最直接的體現：
Existentialism often begins with a sense of the world’s “absurdity,” which finds its most direct expression at the opening of Ecclesiastes:
「虛空的虛空，凡事都是虛空」（傳道書 1:2）。希伯來原文 הֶבֶל（hevel）本意是「蒸汽」或「氣息」——這個翻譯細節值得深究。
“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). The Hebrew word הֶבֶל (hevel) originally means “vapor” or “breath”—this translation detail deserves closer attention.
它不完全等同於現代漢語「虛無」所暗示的「毫無價值」，而更強調轉瞬即逝、無法掌控、抓不住的性質。
It does not fully equate to what “nothingness” implies in modern Chinese—namely, “worthless”—but rather emphasizes the quality of being fleeting, uncontrollable, and ungraspable.
傳道者不是說人生沒有價值，而是說人生像霧氣一樣，你越想緊握，它越從指縫間溜走。
The Preacher is not saying life has no value, but that life is like mist—the harder you grasp it, the more it slips through your fingers.
「日光之下，並無新事」（傳道書 1:9）。歷史循環往復，沒有終極目的，這種重複感加深了存在的荒誕。
“There is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). History cycles endlessly without ultimate purpose, and this sense of repetition deepens the absurdity of existence.
這與卡繆筆下的薛西弗斯幾乎是同一枚硬幣的兩面：薛西弗斯永恆地把石頭推上山、看它滾落、再推上山——這種無意義的重複勞苦，正是《傳道書》2:22-23所描述的：「人在日光之下勞碌累心……他的勞苦成為愁煩，夜間心也不安。」
This is nearly two sides of the same coin as Camus’s Sisyphus: eternally pushing the boulder up the mountain, watching it roll down, and pushing it up again—this meaningless repetitive toil is precisely what Ecclesiastes 2:22–23 describes: “What has man of all his labor and of the striving of his heart… all his days are sorrows, and his work a vexation; yes, his heart takes no rest in the night.”
兩者都精準捕捉到：當勞作失去永恆指向時，重複本身就成了折磨。
Both precisely capture this: when labor loses any eternal reference point, repetition itself becomes torment.
二、意義的追尋與「捕風」
II. The Pursuit of Meaning and “Chasing After Wind”
認清荒誕之後，人本能地尋求意義，但《傳道書》指出，若「在日光之下」（即離開神）尋求，一切都像「捕風」：
Having recognized absurdity, humans instinctively seek meaning—but Ecclesiastes points out that if this pursuit happens “under the sun” (i.e., apart from God), everything is like “chasing after wind”:
「我見日光之下所作的一切事，都是虛空，都是捕風。」（傳道書 1:14）
“I have seen all the works that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind.” (Ecclesiastes 1:14)
「後來，我察看我手所經營的一切事……誰知都是虛空，都是捕風。」（傳道書 2:11）
“Then I looked on all the works that my hands had wrought… and behold, all was vanity and vexation of spirit.” (Ecclesiastes 2:11)
「捕風」這個意象比「虛空」更進一步——它不只是說事物短暫，而是說追尋本身在結構上就注定失敗。
The image of “chasing wind” goes further than “vanity”—it doesn’t merely say things are fleeting, but that the pursuit itself is structurally doomed to fail.
這正是卡繆所說的「荒謬」的精確定義：並非世界本身荒謬，也並非人的渴望荒謬，而是世界的沉默與人對意義的渴望之間的落差，製造出荒謬。
This is precisely Camus’s definition of “the absurd”: neither the world itself nor human longing is absurd in isolation, but rather the gap between the world’s silence and humanity’s yearning for meaning produces absurdity.
傳道者早在兩千多年前，就用「捕風」二字道破了這個落差。
The Preacher, more than two thousand years earlier, captured this gap in the two words “chasing wind.”
三、焦慮與抉擇：齊克果式的轉折點
III. Anxiety and Choice: A Kierkegaardian Turning Point
這是全文的核心分水嶺。薩特認為，人在焦慮面前的唯一出路是絕對自由的自我創造——「存在先於本質」，人沒有預設的目的，只能通過一次次抉擇塑造自己。
This is the core dividing line of the essay. Sartre held that the only way out in the face of anxiety is absolute freedom of self-creation—“existence precedes essence,” meaning humans have no predetermined purpose and can only shape themselves through repeated choices.
但齊克果比薩特早了近一個世紀提出：焦慮（Angst）恰恰是面對無限可能性時，靈魂意識到自己必須在神面前做出抉擇的信號，而非可以靠自我意志消解的東西。
But Kierkegaard, nearly a century before Sartre, proposed that anxiety (Angst) is precisely the signal that when facing infinite possibility, the soul realizes it must make a choice before God—not something that can be dissolved by sheer willpower.
《聖經》多處場景正落在這個框架裡：
Several scenes in the Bible fall precisely within this framework:
死亡的緊迫性：《路加福音》12:16-20中，無知的財主只關注今生財富積累，神卻對他說：「無知的人哪，今夜必要你的靈魂，你所預備的要歸誰呢？」
The Urgency of Death: In Luke 12:16–20, the foolish rich man focuses only on accumulating wealth in this life, yet God says to him, “Fool! This night your soul is required of you, and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?”
死亡不是抽象概念，而是隨時可能降臨、逼迫人立刻抉擇的現實。
Death is not an abstract concept, but a reality that could arrive at any moment, forcing an immediate decision.
抉擇的方向性：《約翰福音》15:16，耶穌說：「不是你們揀選了我，是我揀選了你們。」這句話與薩特的自我創造針鋒相對——不是「你憑空創造自己的本質」，而是「你回應一個先於你、主動呼召你的存在」。
The Direction of Choice: In John 15:16, Jesus says, “You did not choose me, but I chose you.” This directly confronts Sartre’s self-creation—it is not “you create your own essence out of nothing,” but “you respond to a Being who precedes you and actively calls you.”
這正是齊克果「信心之躍」的聖經原型：躍入的不是虛空，而是一位已經在向你伸手的神。
This is precisely the biblical prototype of Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith”: what one leaps into is not the void, but a God who is already reaching out to you.
四、死亡觀的交鋒：向死而生與復活論
IV. A Clash of Views on Death: Being-Toward-Death and the Resurrection
若要真正理解存在主義與《聖經》在「終極關懷」上的分歧，死亡觀是最鋒利的切入點。
If we want to truly understand where existentialism and the Bible diverge on “ultimate concern,” views on death offer the sharpest point of entry.
海德格爾的「向死而生」：海德格爾（Martin Heidegger）認為，人之所以能活得「本真」（authentic），關鍵在於正視死亡——不是把死亡當作遙遠的、可以逃避的外在事件，而是意識到「我隨時可能不存在」，並將這種覺知帶入每一個當下的抉擇中。
Heidegger’s “Being-Toward-Death”: Martin Heidegger argued that the key to living “authentically” lies in confronting death directly—not treating it as a distant, avoidable external event, but recognizing “I could cease to exist at any moment,” and carrying this awareness into every present choice.
他稱這種覺醒為「向死而生」（Being-toward-death）：唯有承認自己終將死去，人才能從日常的隨波逐流（他稱之為「沉淪」）中甦醒，真正擁有屬於自己的人生。
He called this awakening “Being-toward-death”: only by acknowledging one’s own mortality can a person awaken from everyday drift (what he called “falling”) and truly own their life.
這與《傳道書》的洞察有驚人的重疊：「我見日光之下所行的一切事，都是虛空，都是捕風」，正是因為死亡終將抹去一切成就的痕跡（傳道書 9:5：「活著的人知道必死；死了的人毫無所知」）。
This overlaps strikingly with Ecclesiastes’ insight: “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity”—precisely because death will erase every trace of achievement (Ecclesiastes 9:5: “The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing”).
但海德格爾止步於此：向死而生只能催逼人活得更真誠、更緊迫，卻無法回答死亡之後是否還有什麼。它是一種「英勇的絕望」——直視深淵，卻沒有橋樑跨越深淵。
But Heidegger stops here: Being-toward-death can only urge a person to live more sincerely and urgently, but cannot answer whether there is anything beyond death. It is a kind of “heroic despair”—staring into the abyss without a bridge across it.
保羅的復活論：《哥林多前書》15章提供了截然不同的路徑。保羅並未否認死亡的真實性與嚴重性——他稱死亡為「最後的仇敵」（15:26），甚至坦承：「我們若靠基督只在今生有指望，就算比眾人更可憐」（15:19）。
Paul’s Doctrine of Resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15 offers a radically different path. Paul does not deny the reality and severity of death—he calls it “the last enemy” (15:26), and even admits, “If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied” (15:19).
但他隨即宣告：「基督已經從死裡復活，成為睡了之人初熟的果子」（15:20）。復活不是逃避死亡，而是穿越死亡並戰勝它。
But he immediately declares, “Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (15:20). Resurrection is not an escape from death, but a passing through and conquering of death.
保羅甚至嘲諷死亡：「死啊，你得勝的權勢在哪裡？死啊，你的毒鉤在哪裡？」（15:55）——這種語氣與海德格爾莊嚴肅穆的「向死而生」形成鮮明對比：一個是英勇地承受死亡的重量，一個是宣告死亡的重量已被卸下。
Paul even taunts death: “O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (15:55)—this tone contrasts sharply with Heidegger’s solemn “being-toward-death”: one heroically bears death’s weight, the other declares that death’s weight has already been lifted.
兩種「面對死亡」的姿態：海德格爾教人如何在死亡的陰影下活得真實；保羅則宣告死亡的陰影本身已被打破，因此人可以活在復活盼望的光中，而非僅僅活在向死而生的陰影下。
Two Postures Toward Death: Heidegger teaches how to live authentically under death’s shadow; Paul declares that death’s shadow itself has been broken, so one can live in the light of resurrection hope, rather than merely under the shadow of being-toward-death.
這正是《聖經》超越存在主義診斷的關鍵一步：它不僅像海德格爾一樣要求人正視死亡的真實，更進一步宣告死亡並非終局。
This is precisely the key step by which the Bible surpasses the existentialist diagnosis: it not only demands, as Heidegger does, that one face the reality of death honestly, but goes further to declare that death is not the final word.
五、在苦難中追問意義：《約伯記》
V. Questioning Meaning Amid Suffering: The Book of Job
《約伯記》是探討無辜受苦的經典文本，其結構本身就是一場存在主義式的審判。
The Book of Job is a classic text exploring innocent suffering, and its very structure is a kind of existentialist trial.
荒謬的具象化：約伯完全正直卻突遭家破人亡、疾病纏身，其痛苦真實而客觀，直接擊碎了「善有善報、惡有惡報」的樸素因果邏輯。
The Concretization of Absurdity: Job, though entirely upright, suddenly suffers the loss of family and affliction with disease—his suffering is real and objective, directly shattering the naive logic of “good rewarded, evil punished.”
這與卡繆筆下「世界對人的呼喊無動於衷」的荒謬感如出一轍。
This echoes precisely Camus’s sense of absurdity—“the world’s indifference to human cries.”
追問而非逃避：約伯沒有用陳詞濫調麻痹自己，也沒有像三個朋友那樣用僵化的神學公式解釋苦難，而是不斷與神辯論、質問、甚至控訴。
Questioning Rather Than Escaping: Job does not numb himself with clichés, nor does he explain his suffering with the rigid theological formulas of his three friends, but instead continually argues, questions, and even accuses God.
這種「誠實地留在問題裡」的姿態，本身就是存在主義式的——拒絕虛假的安慰。
This posture of “honestly remaining within the question” is itself existentialist—a refusal of false comfort.
轉折的關鍵：值得特別注意的是，神在38-41章的回應沒有直接回答「為什麼是我」，而是用一連串關於創造秩序的反問——「我立大地根基的時候你在哪裡？」「你能繫住昴星的結嗎？」——把約伯的視角從「我的處境」猛然拉升到「我在整個受造秩序中的位置」。
The Key Turning Point: Notably, God’s response in chapters 38–41 does not directly answer “why me”, but instead poses a series of questions about the order of creation—“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” “Can you bind the chains of the Pleiades?”—abruptly lifting Job’s perspective from “my situation” to “my place within the entire created order.”
這不是理性上的答案，而是一次遭遇（encounter），約伯的問題框架被重新定義，他說：「我從前風聞有你，現在親眼看見你」（42:5）。
This is not a rational answer, but an encounter—Job’s framework for the question is redefined, and he says, “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you” (42:5).
這正是齊克果式「信心之躍」的實際發生：不是問題被解決，而是在與神的相遇中，問題不再以同樣的方式困擾靈魂。
This is precisely the actual occurrence of a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith”: not that the problem is solved, but that in the encounter with God, the problem no longer troubles the soul in the same way.
五之一、荒謬的兩種終局：約伯的俯伏與薛西弗斯的微笑
V.1 Two Endings to Absurdity: Job’s Prostration and Sisyphus’s Smile
卡繆在《薛西弗斯神話》的結尾，寫下了存在主義文獻中最著名的一句宣言：「我們必須想像薛西弗斯是幸福的」（法文原句：Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux）。
At the end of The Myth of Sisyphus, Camus writes one of the most famous declarations in existentialist literature: “One must imagine Sisyphus happy” (French: Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux).
這句話的邏輯是：既然諸神懲罰薛西弗斯永恆推石上山、看它滾落，這個懲罰的荒謬性本身，恰恰成了薛西弗斯的自由——他不再期待任何意義或救贖，而是在清醒地接受無意義的那一刻，奪回了對自己命運的主權。
The logic here is: since the gods punish Sisyphus by having him eternally push a boulder up a mountain only to watch it roll down again, the very absurdity of this punishment becomes Sisyphus’s freedom—by lucidly accepting meaninglessness, he reclaims sovereignty over his own fate.
卡繆稱之為「荒謬的英雄」：他「藐視諸神，痛恨死亡，對生命充滿激情」，卻拒絕自殺（無論是肉體的還是哲學的自殺——即皈依某種超越性的信仰）。
Camus calls him the “absurd hero”: one who “scorns the gods, hates death, and is passionate about life,” yet refuses suicide—whether physical suicide or philosophical suicide (i.e., converting to some transcendent faith).
約伯記結尾的鏡像與對反：約伯記42章同樣以一個「接受」作結，但這個接受的內容和方向與薛西弗斯完全相反。
A Mirror and Inversion in the Ending of Job: Job 42 likewise ends with an act of “acceptance,” but the content and direction of this acceptance are entirely opposite to Sisyphus’s.
約伯沒有說「我接受這無意義的荒謬，並在藐視中找到自由」，而是說：「我從前風聞有你，現在親眼看見你。因此我厭惡自己，在塵土和爐灰中懊悔」（42:5-6）。
Job does not say, “I accept this meaningless absurdity and find freedom in defiance,” but rather, “I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (42:5–6).
這個「俯伏」（在塵土和爐灰中）表面上看似與薛西弗斯的「藐視」（défi）截然相反——一個是屈服，一個是反抗。
This “prostration” (in dust and ashes) appears, on the surface, to be the exact opposite of Sisyphus’s “defiance”—one is submission, the other rebellion.
但細看會發現，兩者其實共享同一個結構：都是在直視荒謬（或神聖奧秘）之後、不逃避、不自殺、依然選擇活下去並承擔生命重量的姿態。
But on closer examination, both share the same underlying structure: both are postures of choosing to keep living and bear the weight of existence, after staring directly into absurdity (or divine mystery), without escape and without suicide.
差別在於：薛西弗斯的自由來自「確認無人在聽」，因此他必須自己成為意義的源頭；約伯的平安則來自「確認有一位在場、且遠超他理解」，因此他不再需要成為意義的源頭，只需回應。
The difference lies here: Sisyphus’s freedom comes from confirming that “no one is listening,” so he himself must become the source of meaning; Job’s peace comes from confirming that “Someone is present, far beyond his comprehension,” so he no longer needs to be the source of meaning—only to respond.
盼望與反抗的張力：卡繆的「幸福」是一種悲壯的、自我賦予的幸福——它建立在「沒有出口」的前提上，因此薛西弗斯的微笑帶著孤獨的重量，是一個人在無回應的宇宙中對自己說「這樣就夠了」。
The Tension Between Hope and Rebellion: Camus’s “happiness” is a tragic, self-bestowed happiness—it rests on the premise that “there is no way out,” so Sisyphus’s smile carries the weight of solitude, a person telling himself, in an unresponsive universe, “this is enough.”
約伯的平安則是一種被給予的平安——它不是約伯自己創造出來的心理防禦機制，而是在與神真實相遇後產生的結果：「耶和華賜福給約伯的晚年，比他的前半生更多」（42:12）。
Job’s peace, by contrast, is a peace that is given—not a psychological defense mechanism Job manufactures for himself, but the result of a genuine encounter with God: “The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning” (42:12).
值得注意的是，這個「賜福」不是苦難的邏輯解答（神從未解釋「為什麼是約伯」），而是關係的恢復本身成了答案——這與薛西弗斯「永遠得不到答案，只能自己賦予意義」形成了最尖銳的對比。
Notably, this “blessing” is not a logical resolution of suffering (God never explains “why Job”), but rather the restoration of relationship itself becomes the answer—this stands in the sharpest contrast to Sisyphus, who “never receives an answer and can only assign meaning to himself.”
兩種「清醒」的分野：卡繆強調「清醒」（lucidité）是荒謬英雄的核心美德——清醒地看見沒有意義，卻依然活著。
A Divergence in Two Kinds of “Lucidity”: Camus emphasizes “lucidity” as the core virtue of the absurd hero—lucidly seeing that there is no meaning, yet still choosing to live.
約伯的「清醒」則是另一種形態：他在辯論中始終拒絕廉價的答案（無論是朋友們「你一定做錯了什麼」的因果論，還是自己「神不公平」的控訴），堅持留在問題的張力中，直到最終那個清醒不是「看見無意義」，而是「看見那位遠超他理解、卻仍然信實的神」。
Job’s “lucidity” takes a different form: throughout the dialogue, he consistently refuses cheap answers—neither his friends’ causal logic (“you must have done something wrong”) nor his own accusation that “God is unjust”—insisting on remaining within the tension of the question, until his final lucidity is not “seeing meaninglessness,” but “seeing a God who is far beyond his understanding, yet still faithful.”
總結這個對照：如果說薛西弗斯的微笑是「荒謬中的孤獨反抗」，約伯的俯伏則是「荒謬中的信靠降服」——兩者都拒絕廉價的答案與自我欺騙，都選擇在痛苦中繼續活下去，但一個是向內轉，自己成為意義的最後防線；另一個是向外轉，在遠超自己的那一位面前找到安息。
Summarizing the comparison: if Sisyphus’s smile represents “solitary rebellion within absurdity,” Job’s prostration represents “faithful surrender within absurdity”—both reject cheap answers and self-deception, both choose to keep living amid suffering, but one turns inward, becoming the last line of defense for meaning himself, while the other turns outward, finding rest before One far greater than himself.
這正是《傳道書》「日光之下」與「日光之上」這組意象的終極註腳：卡繆筆下的英雄永遠被鎖在「日光之下」的循環裡，以孤獨的意志對抗虛空；而約伯，卻在苦難的盡頭被帶到「日光之上」，與那位造他、卻也親自向他啟示自己的神面對面。
This is the ultimate footnote to Ecclesiastes’ imagery of “under the sun” versus “above the sun”: Camus’s hero remains forever locked within the cycle of “under the sun,” resisting the void with solitary will; Job, however, is led at the far end of his suffering to “above the sun,” face to face with the God who made him and who also personally revealed Himself to him.
六、超越之路：從「日光之下」到「日光之上」
VI. The Path of Transcendence: From “Under the Sun” to “Above the Sun”
《聖經》的獨特之處，在於它不止步於診斷困境，更指出一條超越的道路。
What makes the Bible unique is that it does not stop at diagnosing the predicament, but points to a path of transcendence.
《傳道書》的結論：「這些事都已聽見了。總意就是敬畏神，謹守他的誡命，這是人所當盡的本分」（12:13）——荒誕感不是靠否認它、也不是靠自我意志克服它，而是在與神的關係中被重新安放。
The conclusion of Ecclesiastes: “The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man” (12:13)—the sense of absurdity is not overcome by denial nor by sheer willpower, but is resettled within relationship with God.
尋求的呼應：《使徒行傳》17:26-27指出，神創造萬族，「要叫他們尋求神，或者可以揣摩而得，其實他離我們各人不遠」。
The echo of seeking: Acts 17:26–27 states that God made every nation “that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us.”
人對意義的渴望不是徒勞的進化殘餘，而恰恰對應著一位主動等待被尋見的神。
Humanity’s yearning for meaning is not a futile evolutionary residue, but precisely corresponds to a God who actively waits to be found.
根本的分歧點：薩特說「存在先於本質」——你沒有預設目的，只能通過選擇創造自己。《聖經》說「本質先於存在」——你被一位有目的的神所創造和呼召，你的抉擇不是在虛空中憑空塑形，而是在回應或拒絕這個先在的呼召。
The fundamental divergence: Sartre says “existence precedes essence”—you have no predetermined purpose and can only create yourself through choice. The Bible says “essence precedes existence”—you were created and called by a purposeful God, and your choices are not shaping in a vacuum, but a response to, or rejection of, this prior calling.
結語：診斷相同，處方不同
Conclusion: Same Diagnosis, Different Prescription
存在主義哲學與《聖經》的相遇之處，恰恰在於它們對人類處境的診斷驚人地一致：荒誕、焦慮、死亡的逼迫、自由抉擇的重量，這些都被兩者同樣嚴肅地對待，沒有廉價的樂觀主義遮掩。但在處方上，兩條路分道揚鑣。
Where existentialist philosophy and the Bible meet is precisely in their strikingly consistent diagnosis of the human condition: absurdity, anxiety, the pressure of death, and the weight of free choice—both treat these with equal seriousness, without cheap optimism papering over them. But in prescription, the two paths diverge.
薩特式的無神論存在主義把人留在虛空中，命令他「你必須自由，因此你必須創造意義」——這本身近乎一種新的絕望，因為自我創造的意義終究無法逃脫「日光之下」的循環與消逝。
Sartrean atheistic existentialism leaves humanity in the void, commanding, “You must be free, therefore you must create meaning”—this itself amounts to a new kind of despair, since self-created meaning ultimately cannot escape the cycle and decay of “under the sun.”
而《聖經》——尤其借著與齊克果遙相呼應的信心之躍、保羅穿越死亡而非僅僅正視死亡的復活盼望，以及約伯在遭遇中被給予的平安——指出：真正的出路不是向內的自我創造，而是向外、向上的回應：回應一位在「日光之上」、早已尋找你、且離你不遠的神。
The Bible, however—especially through its echo of Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, Paul’s resurrection hope that passes through death rather than merely confronting it, and the peace given to Job in his encounter—points out: the true way out is not inward self-creation, but an outward, upward response: a response to a God who is “above the sun,” who has already sought you, and who is not far from you.
Leave a Reply