The Paradox Of Abraham's Greatness

7/29/2019 The Paradox Of Abraham's Greatness

1/9

The Paradox Of Abrahams Greatness

By: Taylor Rodrigues

Since the substance of Abrahams life is an enormous paradox it surely follows that

Abrahams greatness is a paradox (Kierkegaard p. 39). The goal of this paper is to argue that

Abraham is the greatest because his greatness is a paradox. I will begin by explicating Johannes

de Silentinos account of Abraham and King Agamemnon. Then I will discredit some common

misconceptions about greatness. Afterwards, I will introduce the paradox of Abrahams

greatness and interpret it to defend my thesis by comparing and contrasting Abraham, a knight of

faith, to King Agamemnon, a tragic hero. Lastly, I will defend my interpretation from a potential

objection that the docents would likely launch.

Abrahams story begins with a promise from God. Abraham believed Gods promise that

he would have a child, and through that child he would become the father of nations

(Kierkegaard p. 30). Seventy years passed from the initial promise and Abrahams wife,Sarah,

became a laughingstock because it was assumed that she had become infertile with her old age

(Kierkegaard p. 31-32). But Abrahams belief that God would fulfill his promise still did not

waver. Eventually Abrahams faith was rewarded: Abraham and Sarah conceived a son they

named Isaac. However, their joy was cut short because God ordered Abraham to take Isaac,

thine only son, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah, and offer him there for a

burnt offering upon the mountain which I will show thee [sic] (Kierkegaard p. 32). In spite of

this command, Abraham still held faith that God would fulfill his original promise; he did not try

to change Gods mind. Instead, he told no one of Gods command and took Isaac to make the

three day journey to Mount Moriah. Once they arrived at the top of the Mountain, [Abraham]

cleft the wood, he bound Isaac, he lit the pyre and drew the knife (Kierkegaard p. 33). But at

the last moment an angel stopped Abraham and explained, now I know that you fear God


2/9

Rodrigues 2

(Gen. 22:12). Abraham recollected himself, saw a ram caught in the thicket, sacrificed it to God

instead of Isaac, and then went home with Isaac.

Silentino gives accounts of several tragic heroes. Because all our quite similar and for

the purpose of brevity, I will focus on King Agamemnon. During the Trojan War, King

Agamemnons fleet was struck by a plague and could not sail from Aulis because of the lack of

wind. The seer Calchas told King Agamemnon that the Goddess Artemis was intentionally

inflicting these misfortunes on King Agamemnon because he had offended Artemis. According

to Calchas, Artemis wanted King Agamemnons daughter, Iphigenia, as a sacrifice to atone for

King Agamemnons misdeeds. Eventually for the good of the nation and the war effort, King

Agamemnon had Iphigenia sacrificed. Artemis was satisfied and King Agamemnon was able to

sail out from Aulis and capture Troy.

Now that I have summarized the stories of Abraham and King Agamemnon, I will

explain what Silentino asserts greatness is not. It is important to understand what greatness is

not so we are not distracted or led astray once we begin to investigate Abrahams greatness.

Silentino says, it is of no use to have Abraham for ones father, nor to have seventeen

ancestors (Kierkegaard p. 35). I interpret this to mean that no one is inherently great based on

their birth. Noble birth or poor pedigree is irrelevant to ones greatness. The attitude, it counts

enough to think the greatother work is not necessary is equally foolish (Kierkegaard p. 35).

Reminiscing about the heroes of antiquity or imagining yourself performing great feats does not

make you great. Neither can you become great by emulating the nave dancer who tries to coast

on others past work and start with the French dances (great feats) (Kierkegaard p. 50). Lastly,

Silentino is explicit that you cannot buy greatness: even Judas who sold his master for thirty

pieces of silver is not more despicable than the man who sells greatness (Kierkegaard p. 63).


3/9

Rodrigues 3

Greatness should never be on a regular clearance saleit should never be for sale

(Kierkegaard p. 26). It cannot be stolen or transferred, and although one can use fraud to appear

great, one cannot become great through fraud. Greatness is not something that comes easily and

unexpectedly like winning the lottery or inheriting a large estate.

By discussing what greatness is not, I have begun to create a fuzzy picture of what

greatness is. I will start to defog this picture by comparing and contrasting Abraham to King

Agamemnon. In short, the paradox of Abrahams greatness is:

Abraham was greater than all, great by reason of his power whose strength is

impotence, great by reason of his wisdom whose secret is foolishness, great by

reason of his hope whose form is madness, great by reason of his love which is

hatred of oneself (Kierkegaard p. 30).

Abraham does not seemprima facie great; he does not even seemprima facie mediocre. By

these four criteria King Agamemnon seems to be powerful, wise, hopeful and in love with his

nation. He seems to be greater than Abraham. However, we would not do Abraham justice if

we just stopped at the surface. Silentino emphasizes throughout Fear and Trembling that only

the man that works gets the bread (Kierkegaard p. 35). In order to understand why Abraham is

the greatest we must toil to unravel the paradox that is his greatness. Abraham is notprima facie

great because ourprima facie analysis is worldly. Our initial reactions (prima facie analysis)

cannot help but be worldly because by default we are immersed in the world. We can only begin

to understand Abrahams greatness from the perspective of faith. By faith, Abraham has power

by the strength of the absurd, divine wisdom, divine madness and unwavering love for God. He

only appears to be impotent, foolish, ordinarily mad and to hate himself when he is viewed from

a worldly perspective.


4/9

Rodrigues 4

Abraham appeared impotent because he did not pray for himself with the hope of

moving the Lordor try to escape from Gods command (Kierkegaard p. 3). He submitted to

God but his submission was an expression of power, not weakness. In face of the absurd, (every

indication that God would not fulfill his promise) Abraham steadfastly believed God and trusted

in his seemingly absurd master plan. Abraham had the strength to face God and Isaac directly

and without outside help. He did not try to get a holy man to be an intermediary between him

and God, and he did not try to make someone else sacrifice Isaac. He had the strength to face

God alone and put aside his fear and trembling to fulfill the most frightening task he had ever

been assigned. Abraham was so strong he did not ask for anyones sympathies nor did he need

them.

In contrast, King Agamemnon is strong in the finite. He had a difficult decision: either

sacrifice his daughter for the war effort, or keep his daughter and let his fleet suffer Artemiss

wrath. It took a lot of strength to make the decision to sacrifice Iphigenia but unlike Abraham,

he received outside help to ease his burden. King Agamemnon did not have to directly face his

ethical dilemma. He was able to delegate the task of sacrificing his daughter, receive the

sympathies of his people and communicate with Artemis though a mediator (Calchas). King

Agamemnon was able to mediate his decision by letting one expression of the ethical [duty to

daughter] find its telos in a higher expression ofthe ethical [duty to nation] (Kierkegaard p.60).

Because he had the luxury of comparing his conflicting ethical duties he was able to recognize

the latter superseded the former. Consequently, the greatness of King Agamemnons actions is

diminished because he received external help.

Abraham looked like a fool compared to King Agamemnon. To those without faith (or

with weak faith), it looked like the Lord was only making sport of Abraham. He made


5/9

Rodrigues 5

miraculously the preposterous [having a child at Abraham and Sarahs age] actual and now in

turn he would annihilate it [kill Isaac] (Kierkegaard p. 32). The slaves of paltriness would have

ridiculed Abraham for letting God make him into a sucker. They would have croaked, Why

risk holding out? Forget Sarah and beget an heir while youre still fertile. How can you expect

anyone to fulfill a promise after decades? Abraham seems like a fool to the faithless because he

was not a cost-benefit calculator. But he was better off than a human calculator because his

faith gave him divine wisdom. By faith, Abraham knew that God delivers and through him all

things are possibleeven the absurd. Abraham would have appeared to be even more of a fool

if Isaac really was sacrificed because the faithless do not understand that God could [have]

give[n] him a new Isaac (Kierkegaard p. 42). Abraham was divinely wise, not foolish, for

believing and following God.

In contrary to Abraham, King Agamemnon appeared to make a wise decision. He

weighed the costs and benefits of sacrificing and not sacrificing his daughter. Then, he wisely

decided to give up the certain [his daughter] for the still more certain [Artemiss fulfillment of

the agreement] (Kierkegaard p. 61). King Agamemnon was reasonably certain Artemis would

honour their verbal contract. King Agamemnonssure betmakes Abrahams decision to

sacrifice Isaac look like a reckless gamble for he who denies himself and sacrifices himself for

duty gives up the finite [the certain] in order to grasp the infinite [the uncertain] (Kierkegaard p .

61). The slaves of paltriness would be appalled that he appeared to give up Isaac, something he

had for certain in the finite, for the hope of receiving Isaac and fathering nations. They do not

understand that through divine wisdom, Abraham knew he would receive Isaac and his legacy

before he gave up Isaac.


6/9

Rodrigues 6

I concede that Abraham was mad. [He] believed and did not doubt, he believed the

preposterous (Kierkegaard p. 33). When the last moments were upon him and the knife

glittered in his hand he did not look anxiously to the right or to left to find something to save

him from his plight like any sane person would (Kierkegaard p. 34). Yet, Abrahams madness is

a virtue, not a vice. Abraham was influenced by divine madness, not the ordinary madness that

afflicts the mentally ill. Ordinary madness is dangerous, irrational and unfruitful. Divine

madness does not harm the recipient but it likely puts them near danger; it is not rational but

begins precisely there where thinking leaves off; and inspires the recipient to greatness

(Kierkegaard p. 55). Socrates says, I might tell you of many other noble deeds which have

sprung from inspired madness. And therefore, let no one frighten or flutter us by saying that the

temperate friend is to be chosen rather than the inspired [because] the sane man disappears and is

nowhere [to be found] when he enters into rivalry with the madman (Plato p. 39). Let us

remember that Abraham is a knight of faith and King Agamemnon is a tragic hero and a knight

of infinite resignation. Abraham must have been divinely mad to have infinitely resigned Isaac

and expected him back by virtue of the absurd. On the other hand, King Agamemnon resigned

Iphigenia and had good hope that Artemis would stop interfering with his affairs. The good hope

Agamemnon showed in Artemis is respectable and can be understood. Yet, Abraham is greater

than King Agamemnon because it is more impressive to believe in a God that is showing you

bad faith than to believe in one that shows you good faith. Similarly, it is more impressive to do

something that makes you look ordinarily mad (trying to sacrifice Isaac) then doing something

that does not make you look ordinarily mad (having Iphigenia sacrificed).

The last aspect of Abrahams paradox is his love which is hatred of himself. He appears

to hate himself for trying to kill Isaac: the concentration of all his finite desires. Abraham loved


7/9

Rodrigues 7

Isaac more than anyone could love anything. He was his only child, his legacy. The whole

content of his life [consisted] in this love, and yet the situation is such that it is impossible for it

to be realized, impossible for it to be translated from ideality to reality (Kierkegaard p. 46). It

would have been terrible if God had just snatched Isaac away from Abraham but it is even worse

that he commanded Abraham to physically kill him. To a third party Abraham looked like he

hated himself because he was going to inflict on himself the most terrible wound anyone could

inflict upon him. But Abraham only looked like he hated himself because he loved God. Duty

to God is greater than alleven parental duty to sons and daughters (Kierkegaard p. 66).

Abraham loved God so much he followed his commands perfectly without resistance, hesitation

or complaint. He was not early, he was not late. He fulfilled his duty precisely, thus proving his

love of God.

King Agamemnon also had a lot of love. He loved his nation and he loved his daughter.

His love of his nation rightfully superseded his love of his daughter. However, he is not as great

as Abraham because acting on the love of God is greater and more impressive than acting on the

love of nation. Observers understand individuals acting based on the love of their nation. It is

not nearly as easy to justify to outsiders that one is acting based on the love of God. It was not

clear to outsiders whether Abraham was motivated by a love of God or sadomasochism. For

without Abrahams love of God, the sacrifice of Isaac would only be a murder.

To summarize, from a worldly perspective Abraham appeared to be impotent, foolish,

mad and to hate himself. In truth, he appeared impotent because his strength came from the

absurd; he appeared foolish because he had divine wisdom; he appeared to be a common mad-

man because he was blessed with divine madness; and he appeared to hate himself because he

had unwavering love for God. Abraham is the greatest because he is somehow able to contain a


8/9

Rodrigues 8

synthesis of the worldly concepts and the spiritual concepts, and a synthesis of two opposing

concepts is always greater than either set of concepts. King Agamemnon and the other tragic

heroes were forced to overcome ethical dilemmas similar to Abrahams. Nevertheless, their

ethical dilemmas and their choices are sufficiently different insofar that they are still magnitudes

of greatness away from Abraham.

Despite my arguments, the docents would likely disagree with my analysis because their

life work is to judge the great, and to judge them according to the result (Kierkegaard p. 62-63).

They would object, King Agamemnon is greater than Abraham because he produced a much

greater result: he saved his nation and the war effort. While, at the beginning of Abrahams trial

he had Isaac, and at the end Abraham had Isaac. I disagree that greatness should be judged by

the result. The result is detached physically and temporally from the action. It is plausible that

one may do a great deed or make a great discovery and never fully comprehend the result.

Hence, greatness is what you do, not what you produce. What Abraham did was incredible

regardless if the result had been different. Abrahams faith was able to make a senseless brutal

murder into a holy sacrifice, because faith is greatest and the hardest thing (Kierkegaard p. 54).

The story of Abraham teaches us that the whole of life is atrial (Kierkegaard p. 54). Since we

are constantly being tested, we must continually reaffirm our faith and strife. Because ultimately

no worldly results matter, we should focus on acting greatly and virtuously and not bother trying

to achieving great and virtuous results. Life is about striving and the highest form of striving, is

striving with God.


9/9

Rodrigues 9

Works Cited

Plato. Phaedrus, Apology, Crito and Symposium. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Stilwell, KS:

Digireads.com, 2005. Print.

Kierkegaard, Soren. Existentialism: Basic Writings. Ed. Charles B. Guignon and Derk

Pereboom. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001. N. pag. Print.

The Holy Bible: New International Version. Colorado Springs, CO: International Bible Society,

1984. Print.

The Paradox Of Abraham's Greatness

Documents

Transcript of The Paradox Of Abraham's Greatness