Introduction
The story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22) has long provoked theological and philosophical reflection. Is Abraham a hero of faith or a violator of ethics? For Søren Kierkegaard, writing in Fear and Trembling (1843) under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio, Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac exemplifies the paradoxical and irreducible character of faith.
This retelling is not merely theological; it constitutes a decisive moment in the history of epistemology. By showing that faith resists assimilation into rationalist or empiricist categories of knowledge, Kierkegaard places subjectivity and paradox at the heart of epistemology. His account can be understood as a reaction to the Enlightenment’s emphasis on universal reason (exemplified by Kant) and speculative rationalism (embodied by Hegel), and as a precursor to later existential and ethical philosophies (notably Levinas).
Abraham and the Paradox of Faith
In Kierkegaard’s telling, Abraham is faced with the absolute paradox: he is commanded by God to sacrifice Isaac, the very child through whom God has promised a lineage.
From the standpoint of ethics, Abraham is a murderer.
From the standpoint of reason, the command is absurd.
Yet Abraham obeys, not with resignation but with faith — believing against all evidence that God will somehow keep His promise. Kierkegaard famously calls this the “teleological suspension of the ethical.” Ethics, which is universal, is here suspended in relation to the Absolute.
This paradox crystallizes faith as a mode of knowing that cannot be reduced to rational deduction or empirical evidence. Faith involves the “leap” into the absurd, where truth becomes a matter of inward passion rather than objective certainty.
Kant: Duty, Universality, and the Limits of Faith
Kierkegaard’s Abraham stands in sharp contrast to Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy.
Kant’s view: Morality is grounded in the categorical imperative, the universal law that reason prescribes. To act morally is to act in a way that can be universally willed. Religious faith, for Kant, is legitimate only insofar as it is rational and ethical. God never commands what contradicts universal morality.
Kierkegaard’s challenge: Abraham suspends the ethical in obedience to God. The act cannot be justified by universal reason; it is singular and paradoxical. For Kierkegaard, this exposes a dimension of existence that Kant’s rational moral framework cannot capture. Faith cannot be subsumed under universality — it is a personal relation to the Absolute.
Thus, Kierkegaard destabilizes the Kantian attempt to rationalize religion and morality, highlighting an epistemic space where faith exceeds the boundaries of reason.
Hegel: The Universal and the Individual
If Kant represents rational duty, G. W. F. Hegel represents the speculative absorption of faith into philosophy.
Hegel’s view: Faith belongs to the sphere of finite consciousness but finds its truth in speculative philosophy. The individual is reconciled to the universal Spirit (Geist), and contradictions are resolved in dialectical synthesis. For Hegel, Abraham’s story would find meaning in the unfolding of Spirit through history.
Kierkegaard’s rupture: For Kierkegaard, Abraham resists precisely this subsumption. His faith is incommunicable; it cannot be mediated by the universal. The paradox — “by virtue of the absurd, Abraham receives Isaac” — cannot be aufgehoben (sublated) into dialectical reconciliation.
Thus, Kierkegaard reorients epistemology away from Hegel’s speculative universality toward existential singularity: truth as lived inwardness, not as rational totality.
Levinas: Ethics Beyond Faith?
In the 20th century, Emmanuel Levinas re-read the Abraham story through the lens of ethics. For Levinas, ethics is first philosophy, arising in the face-to-face encounter with the Other.
Levinas’s hesitation: Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice Isaac poses an ethical scandal. Can faith justify violence against the Other? Levinas is wary of Kierkegaard’s suspension of the ethical, fearing it risks legitimizing fanaticism.
Yet, convergence: Like Kierkegaard, Levinas sees in Abraham the call to transcend universality. For Levinas, the divine command interrupts totalizing rationality, forcing the subject into responsibility beyond calculation. Where Kierkegaard emphasizes paradoxical faith, Levinas emphasizes infinite ethical responsibility. Both, however, displace epistemology from detached reason to lived relation.
Faith as an Epistemic Category
What emerges from Kierkegaard’s Abraham, in dialogue with Kant, Hegel, and Levinas, is a new epistemological paradigm:
-
Faith as Paradox: Unlike rational or empirical knowledge, faith accepts the absurd and lives within contradiction.
-
Faith as Subjectivity: Faith is not objective knowledge but existential commitment — “truth is subjectivity.”
-
Faith as Relation: Faith is a personal relation to the Absolute, not a universal law or speculative synthesis.
-
Faith as Risk: To know in faith is to risk uncertainty, to leap beyond evidence and rational assurance.
This epistemology does not negate reason but situates reason within a broader horizon of human existence, where passion, inwardness, and paradox are irreducible.
Conclusion
Kierkegaard’s retelling of Abraham marks a decisive moment in the history of epistemology. By presenting faith as a paradoxical leap beyond ethics and reason, he challenged Kant’s universalism, broke with Hegel’s speculative synthesis, and paved the way for existentialist and phenomenological accounts of truth. Later thinkers like Levinas extended this trajectory, showing how faith and ethics disrupt rational systems and reorient philosophy toward lived responsibility.
In Abraham’s trembling, Kierkegaard discovered that faith is not epistemic deficiency but epistemic excess — a mode of knowing that transcends both rational demonstration and ethical universality. This shift continues to shape debates about the nature of truth, belief, and the limits of human understanding.