Elias basically talks about his faith in God–a manifestation of faith that is very different from the kind of

faith and veneration to God which we have seen from all the other characters in the book. All the other
townspeople seem to follow religion blindly.

In chapter 33, Elias points out that human justice cannot be relied upon. The death of the yellow man
he attributes to God, “the only judge.”

He does not exploit any exclusive qualification to accuse society, confessing: “I have had to believe
greatly in God, because I have lost faith in man.” He concludes that God is the sole judge among men.
With all that he had gone through with the system and how he sees the people to be just going along
blindly, he just left the judgement unto God for he lost all hope there is on the townspeople.

“When a man condemns others to death or destroys their future forever, he does it with impunity and
uses the strength of others to execute his judgments, which after all may be mistaken or erroneous.
But I, in exposing the criminal to the same peril that he had prepared for others, incurred the same
risk as he did.  I did not kill him, but let the hand of God smite him.”

This statement of Elias made us question the morality behind killing a person. Today, we can’t deny that
many killings has been happening in different parts of the world but how could Elias statement justify
this? Could God testify to the killings we say those people deserved?

Ibarra trusting that there’s still potential goodness in human nature made corrupt judges not guilty.
Judges could distort what’s rational in men and a moral illness prevails, dividing facts and value-
judgements:

Ibarra: “But nevertheless, you must admit the necessity of human justice, however imperfect it may
be,”  he  answered.   “God, in spite of the many ministers He may have on earth, cannot, or rather does
not, pronounce His judgments clearly to settle the million conflicts that our passions excite.   It is
proper, it is necessary, it is just, that man sometimes judge his fellows.”

Elias: “Yes, to do good, but not to do ill, to correct and to better, but not to destroy, for if his
judgments are wrong, he hasn’t the power to remedy the evil he has done.”

This two contradicting statements shows the two types of people. The one who believes in the system,
and the one who already lost its hope. Elias here clearly pointed out the evilness that the state is doing
and he cannot bear that anymore. He agrees that man could judge others but it is to do good and to
correct and not the opposite of what’s happening in the country.

Corruption is very evident in our country nowadays and most of us are like those townspeople that
chose to turn a blind eye. Elias believed that vengeance is the only possible solution for wrongdoings
cannot be corrected by another and that he is sure that whatever it is done today would shadow into
the future. This assures us that even we look at it blindly today, the effects of the bad administration
would mirror unto the next generations.