Deconstruction Before Deconstruction: From Paul to Derrida
When the history of deconstruction is introduced, it usually begins with Heidegger and Derrida. Heidegger speaks of Destruktion, and Derrida later develops déconstruction as a distinct philosophical practice. Yet a remarkable conversation with Derrida points to an earlier history, reaching back through Heidegger to Martin Luther and, before him, to a biblical passage.
In November 2002, Derrida took part in a conference in Toronto entitled Other Testaments. During a discussion about deconstruction and Christianity, the interviewer proposed a genealogy: Heidegger's Destruktion could be connected to Luther's theological project, which recalled Paul's warning to the Corinthians and, further back, Isaiah's words about the destruction of human wisdom. Derrida did not reject the suggestion. He acknowledged a Judeo-Christian heritage within the tradition from which deconstruction emerged.
The historical connections are more complex than a simple line of transmission. Luther was not already practicing deconstruction, and Derrida did not inherit a ready-made method from him. What makes the exchange significant is that it directs attention beyond the familiar twentieth-century history and toward an earlier use of the language of destruction.
To understand why Luther enters this history, we have to return to the biblical passage at its source. What does Luther have to do with deconstruction?
2. “I Will Destroy the Wisdom of the Wise”
The biblical passage in question comes from Paul, who is quoting the prophet Isaiah. In 1 Corinthians 1:19, Paul writes:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
The words recall Isaiah 29:14, where God declares that the wisdom of the wise will perish and the understanding of the intelligent disappear. Paul takes up this prophetic language in his discussion of the cross, placing human wisdom under a different order of judgment.
The passage goes on to ask where the wise person, the scribe, and the debater of this age can be found. The cross confronts the standards by which the world ordinarily recognizes wisdom, power, and understanding. What appears foolish according to those standards becomes, for Paul, the site of divine wisdom.
For the history traced here, what matters is the unusual role given to the verb “destroy.” Paul does not describe divine wisdom as an improvement upon human wisdom. The language of destruction signals a more radical displacement: the wisdom that claims authority over understanding encounters the cross and is judged by it.
This Pauline motif would acquire a particularly important theological form in Martin Luther's theology of the cross.
3. Luther: Destruere and the Theology of the Cross
Luther's Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 provides an important point of transition. At its centre stands the distinction between the theologia gloriae and the theologia crucis, the theology of glory and the theology of the cross. The distinction concerns the conditions under which God can be recognized.
The theologia gloriae seeks God through what appears powerful, admirable, and intelligible according to human standards. The theologia crucis begins from the cross, where God is encountered through suffering, weakness, and apparent failure. Luther therefore challenges a mode of theological reasoning that treats visible greatness and human judgments of wisdom as reliable measures of divine reality. What appears to be the higher form of wisdom may, from the perspective of the cross, become precisely what prevents God from being recognized.
This changes the significance of the opposition itself. Wisdom and foolishness, strength and weakness, glory and suffering no longer retain the values assigned to them by ordinary human judgment. The cross reverses the expected order: what appears foolish can reveal wisdom, what appears weak can disclose divine power, and what appears to be failure can become the place of revelation. Luther's argument therefore does more than offer a different answer within an established framework. It calls into question the criteria by which the framework distinguishes what is worthy of recognition in the first place.
It is in this context that destruere becomes significant. In the Heidelberg Disputation, Luther invokes Paul's words about God destroying the wisdom of the wise and uses the language of destruction in his critique of the theological position he calls the theologia gloriae. The connection matters because what is at stake is not the destruction of wisdom in general. Luther's target is a form of theological reasoning whose own standards prevent it from recognizing God where the cross places him.
The theological force of this move lies in the relation between a way of seeing and what that way of seeing can disclose. If divine reality is approached through categories of glory, power, and achievement, the cross will appear as failure rather than revelation. The difficulty therefore lies not simply in reaching a mistaken conclusion. The very criteria by which something is recognized as divine have become inadequate to what the cross reveals.
Luther's use of destruction gives the biblical motif a more specific theological function. The established way of understanding God must be subjected to a critique that exposes its own limitations. This is the point at which the history traced here becomes relevant to Heidegger. The theological setting will disappear, but the problem of inherited structures that shape what can be understood will reappear in a philosophical form.
4. From Destruere to Destruktion
Centuries later, Heidegger gives this problem a philosophical form. In §6 of Being and Time, he describes a task he calls the Destruktion der Geschichte der Ontologie, the destruction or dismantling of the history of ontology. The term does not mean that the philosophical tradition should simply be discarded. Heidegger wants to expose possibilities that have become concealed beneath the accumulated interpretations through which the tradition has been transmitted.
For Heidegger, philosophical concepts can lose their original questionability as they are handed down. A question that was once open can become fixed in a particular conceptual framework, while later interpretations make that framework appear self-evident. In this process, inherited answers can begin to determine what can be asked.
Destruktion is meant to interrupt that process. Heidegger also associates the term with Abbau, a taking apart or dismantling. The image is therefore less one of demolition than of working through something that has acquired layers over time. The task is to loosen those layers sufficiently for concealed possibilities and unresolved questions to become accessible again.
Here the connection with Luther becomes clear, while the difference in their projects remains essential. Luther's problem is theological: a theology of glory can prevent the cross from being recognized as revelation. Heidegger's problem is philosophical: inherited ontological concepts can prevent the question of Being from being genuinely reopened. The two projects therefore belong to different domains, yet both give destruction a critical function within an inherited tradition.
For Heidegger, tradition is not an obstacle that can simply be abandoned. It is the material from which the inquiry begins. Destruktion works through what has been handed down in order to recover possibilities that its later formulations have obscured. The term has acquired a new philosophical meaning, but the older problem of inherited understanding and what it conceals has not disappeared.
5. Derrida: A Heritage, Not a Formula
We can now return to Derrida's conversation in Toronto. The genealogy proposed there acquires a clearer shape: the Pauline language of destruction enters Luther's theology of the cross, Heidegger transforms the problem into a philosophical engagement with the history of ontology, and Derrida develops déconstruction within another historical and philosophical setting.
What matters here is that Derrida recognizes a Judeo-Christian heritage in deconstruction. He does not collapse his own practice into Luther's destruere or Heidegger's Destruktion. Rather, he acknowledges a longer history in which inherited structures are subjected to questioning and transformation.
This helps explain why Derrida resists treating deconstruction as a fixed method or doctrine. In the Toronto discussion, he emphasizes its dependence on its applications and contexts. Deconstruction has no single proper home; it takes different forms as it enters different fields and confronts different inheritances.
The significance of this for our history is modest but important. Deconstruction did not simply appear as an isolated philosophical invention in twentieth-century France. Its history can be situated within older theological and philosophical problems, even though Derrida's treatment of those problems is distinctive.
The further claim Derrida makes in this conversation, that Christianity itself may already be “self-deconstructive,” opens a much larger question. That question belongs to another article.
6. A Word That Changed Its Question
The history of destruction traced here is therefore a history of transformation. In Paul, the word belongs to a biblical challenge to human wisdom. In Luther, it acquires a theological function within the conflict between the theologia gloriae and the theologia crucis. In Heidegger, Destruktion becomes a way of working through the history of ontology.
Derrida inherits this history without simply repeating any of its earlier forms. His déconstruction belongs to another philosophical context, while his remarks in Toronto invite us to recognize that its history reaches further back than the familiar twentieth-century narrative suggests.
The important point, therefore, is to distinguish the meanings that destruere, Destruktion, and déconstruction acquire in their respective contexts. What the genealogy reveals is a recurring philosophical and theological problem: what happens when an inherited way of understanding begins to determine what can be understood?
That question will become distinctly Derridean when the inheritance itself becomes part of what is being transformed.
References
Bambach, C. R. (1995). Heidegger, Dilthey, and the crisis of historicism. Cornell University Press.
Derrida, J. (2005). Christianity and the afterlife of deconstruction. In J. D. Caputo & M. J. Scanlon (Eds.), Transcendence and beyond: A postmodern inquiry (pp. 1–24). Indiana University Press.
Derrida, J. (2002, November). Other testaments [Conference discussion]. Toronto, Canada.
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1927)
Luther, M. (1957). Heidelberg disputation. In H. T. Lehmann (Ed.), Luther’s works (Vol. 31, Career of the Reformer I, pp. 35–70). Muhlenberg Press. (Original work published 1518)
National Council of Churches. (1989). The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. National Council of Churches.
Open University. (n.d.). Jacques Derrida on deconstruction and Christianity [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b39WzjxgYss
Comments
Post a Comment