Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard’s explication of the Biblical story of Abraham and Isaac is not easy reading. This short book is definitely not “philosophy light,” or “theology for the masses,” but a very serious philosophico-theological attempt to understand what it means to have the kind of faith attributed to Abraham, without dismissing him as a madman for being willing to kill his favored son when God asks him to. It is complex, detailed, imaginative, expansive, and difficult (unless you read this sort of thing all the time, which I don’t).

Kierkegaard may not go down easily with anyone who prefers to think of faith as a warm feeling that gets you through the hard times. By his reading of things, neither faith nor doubt, properly understood, comes easily or cheaply, without effort and a considerable amount of time. Indeed, for a book about faith, Kierkegaard writes quite a bit about doubt, leading to the interesting question: Can faith and doubt co-exist? (Hint: The answer is yes.) In justifying or explaining Abraham’s actions, however, the primary tension at issue in Kierkegaard’s study is not between faith and doubt, with faith triumphant, but between ethics (what is publicly acceptable and, even more important, done for the good of all) and aesthetics (human sensory experience). It is not possible to find any rationale or justification for Abraham’s willingness to kill his son in the realm of ethics. It goes against every norm of human society, parental responsibility, and fatherly love. And it is not good enough to say, “Well, Abraham knew that in the end God would spare Isaac and not really require his blood at Abraham’s hand.” That kind of justification undermines the whole story. The only way to understand Abraham as a hero of faith is if he knew that God’s requirement meant that he would, in fact and in deed, kill his son., but also that God would restore Isaac (another Isaac?) to him, since it was through that genealogical line that God’s promises to Abraham had meaning. Not spare him, but restore him. It’s a paradox, and is explainable only by reference to the absurd. By “absurd,” Kierkegaard does not mean strange or weird or ridiculous. He means that which is beyond the ability of human agency and the grasp of human reason. The only way Abraham could act was by reliance on the absurd—the so-called “leap of faith” often referred to. The only way he could regain Isaac was via the absurd, but in order for his faith to have any effect, he had to believe that he was indeed going to sacrifice his son. That’s the paradox, but it is the paradox that is at the heart of any attempt to understand Abraham, in Kierkegaard’s view, because while he argues that the ethical is higher than the aesthetic, the religious stage of life is higher still. This stage puts one in a relationship with God that is personal, absolute, transcendent, and ineffable.

For me, the whole thing began to become understandable (to the extent that it ever did), in the third of the three “problema” that form the core of the book, and especially the last major section. (“But now Abraham. How did he act?”) In the end Kierkegaard denies that he is actually trying to explain Abraham, since he claims that “I cannot understand Abraham, I can only admire him.” Possibly he is just being clever in saying so, though after his discussion of the absurd and of the demands of the religious life, maybe not. The story of Abraham challenges us at the heart of both our private lives (the aesthetic) and our public lives (the ethical), demanding that we at least imagine, even if we cannot live, a life beyond both (the religious).

This is not easy going, certainly not a book to pick up when you’re tired or to try to rush through. In the end I’m glad I read it, though I’m not sure I’m ready just yet to rush out and read everything of Kierkegaard’s. But I did find it eye-opening, at times invigorating, at times nearly impenetrable.

For the penguin edition of the book

Really interesting read, that provides an insight into Christian existentialist thought. Be aware that Kierkegaard's sentences tend to be long-winded at times. Not sure if it's his writing style or the translation.
Also I enjoyed the footnotes, they provided a really good biographic view of Kierkegaard's life, and how certain events influenced his thoughts.
I also found it helpful that the translator took the time to give is a rundown on Hegelian aesthetics and faith. This knowledge helps out as Kierkegaard does mention him a lot--seeing as this piece is a response to the Hegelian world view.

Overall, check it out if you are a fan of faith, the absurd, Christianity, or the novel meditations of Abraham's thoughts.

"To contend with the whole world is a comfort, but to contend with oneself dreadful."
~ Kierkegaard
There are some books that mark your intellectual life in a before/after effect.
Before reading this book, after reading this book...
Fear and Trembling is such a book for me.

I read this for an MA class. I am currently studying at York St. John in York, England for an MA in Contemporary Religion. The "absolute" is God, the Judeo-Christian one, and Kierkegaard shows that this God is indeed not liable to any moral law. Instead, he usurps it in the example of Abraham and Issac in the classic Old Testament story. The basic premise here is that God cannot be equal to a moral law, because then he is subject to it, hence he writes that it is God's will (or God's desire) for the world that is what is above all. In fact, that is what would make him God. The reason it is shocking and problematic is because there are implications to it that are both significant and perhaps detrimental to the idea of God. One of them is that if that God is essentially much like a "ruler" or even a "Dictator," then perhaps the faithful person is living a dreadful life. It may actually be that faith is dreadful. However, many theologians are hesitant about this and there appears to be some debate about whether or not faith is even dreadful in Kierkegaard's writings. However, Kierkegaard is widely read in Christian scholarly circles. And, he is very important because of how he responded to some of the other writer's in his day and shortly before. All in all, this is a good read for the history of Christianity and philosophy, as they ideas represented show the intellectual argument going on up to today. Some would ask why is this important? But, you study at a university, your kids study at a university, and many others who are on the news or in politics (like the president) study at university. If one side is primarily more popular, then that side is influential. Right now the side on skepticism and atheism towards the Judeo-Christian God has a lot of weight in the world. And, Christianity is still a predominant religion. The question is, I think: are people being swayed by the negativity against Jewish and Christian religion? If they are, if I am, if you are, then perhaps those who are Christian should be read moire and should work harder than ever before to make an impact. If we Christians are right, and the world goes in the direction of atheism, which was not always the case, then there would likely be many people who never knew the truth.

To imagine you never knew the truth would be quite a fearful dream.

So, yes, I recommend this book to anyone interested in the truth, and interested in philosophy and religion at the intellectual and academic level.

Fear and Trembling by the eminent theologian and existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard is a must read for all.

Søren masterfully articulates his deep concerns with the philosophers and theologians of his time, and those today, that faith is not a rational approach to life. This position is articulated through inferences from the story of Abraham and Isaac, the life of Christ, and the Father of Existentialism's lost love.

The stars are no indicative of how good the book is but of my inability to understand like 90% of the book. It is very difficult, at least for me