Each of the three Problems begins with the idea that the ethical as such is the universal, a different dimension of which is brought out in each Problem. Does Abrahams faith contain a teleological suspension of the ethical? Abraham seems to offend against the universal in four ways, all closely related. First, he makes of himself an exception to what universality demands (one ought not to kill ones innocent offspring). Thissecondlyamounts to the paradox that the single individual stands higher than the universal. Hegelian concerns about the dangers of subjectivitysuch that Moralitt (concerning an individuals inner will or intention) needs to be subordinated to Sittlichkeit (the customs, norms and institutions of a rational society)are relevant here. The problem with Abraham is that his private relationship to God is given priority over his duties as a social creature. ThusthirdAbraham stands in a direct, unmediated relation to God and sofourthhe cannot explain his actions in publicly a

The radical privacy of his God-relationship is key to understanding the difference between the knight of faith and the tragic hero, the next on the list of whatfaith-is-not. The stories of Agamemnon, Jepthah and Brutus (FT 502/ SKS 4, 1513) each offers another case of a father feeling the obligation to sacrice his own offspring for a cause conceived of as higher. The key difference is that each of these can explain himself by giving a publicly comprehensible account of his actions (such as a military leaders duties to the state overriding those to his own family). These explanations are within the realm of the ethical conceived of as the universal, whereasaccording to JohannesAbraham has no such explanation available to him. His faith is a purely personal virtue (FT 52/SKS 4, 153) as opposed to the virtue of Sittlichkeit embodied by the tragic hero. This relationship between the single individual and the universal is further explored in Problems II and I

II. The former focuses on whether our duty to God is absolute; and what that implies in the case of the kind of direct God-relationship exemplied by Abraham. The lengthy Problem III, whichfocusing on Abrahams silenceconsiders whether concealing his purpose from others (such as his son, wife and servant) was ethically defensible. Problem III in particular has divided commentators, some viewing it as somewhat rambling, others as crucially importantespecially those who attribute signicance to the books motto, and its apparent suggestion that the book may contain a hidden message not understood by the messenger (Johannes himself?).

For these latter, the story of Agnete and the merman (FT 82ff./SKS 4, 183ff.), with its discussion of sin and repentanceimportant themes elsewhere in Kierkegaards authorshiphas seemed particularly important (e.g., Green 1993, Mulhall 2001, Krishek 2009; for an overview, see Lippitt 2016: 196206).