Previously, I have outlined Kierkegaard’s idea of the suspension of universal ethics for duty towards God. This was then contrasted with the tragic hero who remains in the universal ethic. The Knight of Faith is wholly unique from other humans because of the paradox of faith. The Knight of Faith is absolutely different from mankind. Now, we take a more in-depth look at the character and actions of the Knight of Faith (KoF). For the KoF, submitting to the universal ethic is glorious because it is understandable. It also brings security. Yet the KoF foregos that for duty towards God, something not understandable and against the universal ethic. Duty towards God makes the universal ethic mere temptations for the KoF. For Abraham “could surely have wished now and then that the task were to love Isaac as becomes a father, in a way intelligible to all, memorable throughout all ages; he could wish that the task were to sacrifice Isaac for the universal, that he might incite the fathers to illustrious deeds — and he is almost terrified by the thought that for him such wishes are only temptations and must be dealt with as such, for he knows that it is a solitary path he treads and that he accomplishes nothing for the universal but only himself is tried and examined” (Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling, 66). None of Abraham’s actions here was for the universal ethic. Abraham’s action does not save the state, his family, or the universal ethic. Would he not be considered mad? After 130 years, Abraham finally gets a son and then goes to sacrifice the boy! Abraham doesn’t explain why he must do these things, only that it is a trial. His actions never become available for public scrutiny.
The KoF is absolutely different from others: “So the knight of faith has first and foremost the requisite passion to concentrate upon a single factor the whole of the ethical which he transgresses, so that he can give himself the assurance that he really loves Isaac with his whole soul. If he cannot do that, he is in temptation” (Kierkegaard, F&T, 68). Furthermore, the KoF has “enough passion to make this assurance available in the twinkling of an eye and in such a way that is completely valid as it was in the first instance” (Kierkegaard, F&T, 68). He is also alone and without support of the universal ethic. Lastly, the KoF is silent to the ethical. Having accepted the paradox, Abraham does not speak to Sarah, Eleazar, or to Isaac–three ethical authorities; this is because “the ethical had for Abraham no higher expression than the family life” (Kierkegaard, F&T, 100). The KoF already understood the universal ethic and knew that his actions would transgress such ethics. Abraham cannot be an aesthetic hero because the aesthetic hero is such by an accident; there is no accident in God’s directive to Abraham. Abraham cannot be a tragic hero either because a tragic hero sacrifices all of himself in order to reveal his pledge to the universal ethic; Abraham, on the other hand, does nothing for the universal and remains concealed to it. Abraham can only be a KoF, in paradox: “Either the individual as the individual is able to stand in an absolute relation to the absolute (and then the ethical is not the highest) /or Abraham is lost–he is neither a tragic hero, nor an aesthetic hero” (Kierkegaard, F&T, 100). Unlike the aesthetic hero who can speak, Abraham cannot. Abraham cannot make his position any more understandable if he were to speak for days on end uninterrupted. He is unable to find relief in the universal. And this is where the second movement brings Abraham into faith. The first movement was that of infinite resignation–that of giving up the universal ethic (see part 1). The second movement is that of the absurd. Abraham finds comfort in the absurd by saying “But yet this will not come to pass, or, if it does come to pass, then the Lord will give me a new Isaac” (Kierkegaard, F&T, 102). The Knight of Faith, when seen from the perspective of the universal ethic, is a fool. He transgresses the ethical for some duty to something higher than the universal, is unintelligible, and finds comfort in the very thing leading him to break the universal ethic.
Recent Comments
- Some Musings on Higher Education 6
Colin, Bryan, Thainamu, cchrisr, Jew [...] - Were Old Testament Saints Born Again? 8
Chris A, Jesse, TIMFRY, Chris Austere, Bryan [...] - Biblical Christian Giving Part III: Commentary on Philippians 4:10-20 2
Chris A, thainamu - Media and Police Incorrect: Nebraska Shooter did not use "Assault" Rifle 71
5.56, Bob, Kendra, w. Boucher, .45 kev [...] - Why I am not an Objectivist 29
Renaissance Guy, Jew, the rationalist, Jew, the rationalist [...] - The Next American Civil War 27
sid ceaser, Stan R, Chris A, bob, Jasen Tracy [...] - Merry Christmas! 1
Chris A - Book Review: Decision Making & the Will of God - Part 4 9
gortexgrrl, Amos Ortiz, Chris Austere, Jasen Tracy, Chris Austere [...]
This “knight of faith” thing reminds me of Raskolnikov’s “super-human” in Crime and Punishment (although it didn’t work out for him).
Seems like it’d be a very easy idea to abuse.
How do you mean “abuse”?
Well, the basic idea seems to be (please correct me if I’m wrong) that the “KoF” faces choices that he must resolve without help from anyone else or universal ethical principals.
I understand that in Abraham’s case, had he told anyone about his situation they would have said he was mistaken and that God couldn’t possibly have told him that because murder is clearly wrong and God wouldn’t ask him to do that.
But if people think it’s right for them to make such decisions without or against the “universal ethic” they’re going to be likely to do bad things for selfish reasons, not for concern of “something higher.” That’s what I meant by easy to abuse.
For example, you get people doing things because they claim that God told them to do them, like killing abortion doctors, etc.
This is not to say that God can’t talk to someone, but they should always check everything against Scripture. Just as you should check your interpretation of a Biblical text with other portions of the Bible, you should also verify that a vision jives with the Bible.
But look at it from Abraham’s view. True he didn’t have any scripture, but he likely knew that murder was wrong and that child sacrifice was an evil pagan rite.
But he at least knew that the spirit with which he was conversing was God’s Spirit. In the case of someone today feeling like God is talking to him, he should test the spirit to see if it is of God or of Satan. One obvious way would be checking what the spirit says versus what the Bible says, but in a case where the spirit appears to be telling you to do something that contradicts the Bible and/or what you know to be traditionally right and wrong, something further is required to test the spirit.
Like when Ezekiel balked at God’s command to bake food with human excrement (Ezekiel 4)?
Or when, in a vision, Peter refused to eat unclean animals at Gods’ command (Acts 10)?
Both the based their decision on the scripture they had.
In the first case, God relented. That is not to say that Ezekiel “corrected” God, but that God was perhaps testing him or, because of the extreme symbolism involved, was willing to ignore some OT laws for the sake of getting the message across (just as Jesus did with the Sabbath). However, when Ezekiel noticed how unclean it was according to the Mosaic law, God allowed an alternative so that his conscience wouldn’t have that incident as a stumbling block.
In the second case, Peter was rebuked and then shown the meaning of his vision almost immediately afterward. He was misunderstanding Scripture (and Jesus’ teachings) and had to be corrected.
Getting back to “testing the spirit”… another way to test it would be to confide with a strong Christian believer who is solid in his faith. Most modern-day problems that arise from “talking to God” consist of lone people not bouncing what they perceive as God’s Will and Spirit off of other brothers in Christ. For example, my pastor, when I was in high school, had a woman come to him and tell him that she had a spirit of God that could talk through her. To test this spirit, my pastor, a witness, and the woman gathered together to pray. Very soon, the spirit came forth, but it was not a godly one. She began speaking in a very low man’s voice and wouldn’t acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. My pastor and the witness prayed over her and drove out the demon. Had she not confided that spirit in another Christian, it could have begun to control her more and more.
Jasen,
I think you are correct from on standpoint that it is open to abuse, but I think Kierkegaard would say that they are not acting as true knights of faith because the action called for by God is self-sacrificial and personal. This is why Abraham going to sacrifice his own son as an example of the KoF and not Moses or Joshua.
Darius,
This idea of “test the spirit” is very much embedded in American evangelicalism. If Abraham followed those steps, he would have never listened to God and gone to Mt Moriah. This is one Kierekgaard’s points in that the Knight of Faith has no one to turn to for help because the vast majority of us (myself and Kierkegaard included) aren’t knights of faith. Furthermore, even if they were, they still wouldn’t be able to understand the problem because the Knight of Faith is unable to coherently explain the situation he or she is in to another person. The KoF is unable to speak. This is why Kierkegaard says that he can’t understand Abraham, only acknowledge and extol him.
Chris, unfortunately that is not correct. Abraham was able to test the spirit, in that he knew he was conversing with God, and not some figment of his imagination or worse, a demon. He had numerous occasions to “test the spirit” in his life, and in every case, God made Himself known. If a spirit is of God, He will make it known to us, as he did with Abraham and Peter.
cchrisr, thanks for that clarification. And I did not mean to apply that simply because the idea has great potential for abuse that it is necessarily invalid.
That said, I don’t believe there is the same amount of “God’s Spirit” openly communicating in the same manner as in portions of the Old Testament and the early church (this doesn’t include the Holy Spirit, which is in all believers). I think this is for at least three reasons: partly because God wanted Himself shown in the Scriptures as actively communicating with His followers; partly because He had to directly talk to Abraham and his descendants to make certain that they had His laws and understood Him; and partly due to the need to spread the Gospel in the NT.
Likewise with miracles, we don’t seem to see as many today (except in some third world countries which are just now getting the gospel in their tongues) and I think this isn’t just due to the Western church having less faith than the early church (though this could very well be part of it). I feel that one main reason that the Western world doesn’t appear to have as many miracles (though, appearances can be deceiving since so many “miracles” are notched up as medical marvels, mistakes, and the like) is that miracles are primarily a method to help spread the Gospel to unbelievers. Believers should not need miracles (though they are helpful to strengthen our faith) like the Lost need miracles to occasionally draw them and show God’s power.