Deconstructing Mark

Within the world of deconstruction is seen the dismantling of the hierarchical system of binary oppositions as established within the realm of structuralism. Structuralism, with its very modernist approach, sought to place specific rules and boundaries upon the interpretation of the text. Deconstruction seeks to take apart the text bit by bit in order to understand the broader meaning of what has been written without limiting itself to the boundaries established by structuralism.

Within the context of the deconstructive thought process of postmodernism lies the idea that there is more than one specific meaning to any given text. There are many layers of meanings that may be applied. Those with this view believe that the author had multiple meanings when he wrote what he did and also that many more meanings can be found within the text without a connection to the author and his original intent for the text. “A deconstructor begins textual analysis by assuming that a text has multiple interpretations and that it allows itself to be reread and thus reinterpreted countless times.”[1] While this idea of multiple meanings in a text sounds like a very postmodern way of thinking, it is actually a very old way of interpreting the Scriptures. One can see this type of thinking in the four-fold method of interpreting Scripture as seen in the early schools of the early church. Along with this would be Philo’s methods of allegory. However, this way of thinking goes much farther back in time than this. The ancient Jewish rabbis had a saying that said, “To every text is seventy faces,” indicating that they believed in multiple meanings and interpretations of the scriptural texts. These various meanings of the texts which the rabbis discovered came to be known as midrash, or their own interpretations or commentaries on what the Scriptures said and meant.

In order to find the multiple meanings behind the text, one must first stop assuming that there is only one meaning to what has been written. If one believes that there is only one specific meaning behind a text then they will not be open to examining the many other possible meanings of that text. “When beginning the interpretive process, deconstructors seek to override their own logocentric and inherited ways of viewing the text.” [2] One must detach themselves from modernist and structuralist ways of thinking about the text. Structuralism seeks to find the meaning of the text based on its own principles. Deconstruction sees these principles as weak and limiting and wishes to establish its own ways of interpretation. Deconstruction seeks to abolish the hierarchies established by the binary oppositions found in the structuralist methods of interpretation. Within structuralism is seen the idea that binary oppositions may be found and established within the text with one opposition being more significant or superior to its counterpart. Deconstruction states that one opposition is not necessarily more important than its counterpart. They may be of equal importance or value.

Also, with structuralism, one bases their interpretation upon preconceived ideas of rank and value of certain things. “According to Derrida, Western thought has always been built on binary oppositions […] The first term in each pair, as Derrida notes, is ordinarily assumed to be superior to the second and is elevated over it.”[3] For example, within the binary opposition of heaven and earth one would assume that heaven is of greater importance than earth – the spiritual realm over the physical realm. This is why when these two words are listed together – “heaven and earth” – heaven is listed before earth, instead of listing them as “earth and heaven.” Deconstructive thought says that one must question whether or not the rankings and the hierarchies that have been given to these binary oppositions are indeed the best way of looking at them. If one believes that heaven is more important than earth then this will influence greatly how they interpret any passage of Scripture relating to heaven and earth. Deconstruction asks, “What if we reversed the order? What if our preconceived notions and ideas of hierarchy are skewed? If the structuralist idea of heaven being more important than earth is not true, then how would that affect the way we interpret all other texts?” In reversing the order that these two concepts of heaven and earth are ranked within the structuralist mindset we may discover that earth is just as important as heaven or perhaps even more important than heaven. In reversing the order and so reinvestigating the significance of the various binary oppositions within the text, one may discover that there were in fact much deeper meanings to what was said in the text than what had been previously understood which was based upon perhaps faulty understandings on the relationship of one thing to another.

Deconstruction does not want the reader to be limited to what has always been understood as the major themes of the text. Deconstruction sees the obscure parts of the passages as being of great importance as well. With the example of heaven and earth, heaven would have been considered the major and more important theme, and earth the afterthought or the obscure idea; but with the reversal of the placement of the binary oppositions within the text, the obscurity of earth becomes less obscure and perhaps even just as important as the traditionally higher-elevated heaven. With this particular example - the reversal of “heaven and earth” to “earth and heaven” - one may find deeper levels of meaning now that the structuralist hierarchy has been pushed to the side for the moment. The new levels of meaning that one may take from this particular example could be such ideas as God’s creation of both heaven and earth as perhaps being of equal significance. Perhaps earth is just as important of a creation as heaven in God’s mind. Perhaps the physical aspects of His creation are just as important as the spiritual aspects. Perhaps the life lived on earth is just as important as the life lived in heaven. Perhaps this would also imply that the physicality of our makeup as humans could be just as important as our spirituality. These are just a few examples of what could be implied through the reversal of the binary oppositions within a text.

A good example of this concept being applied in the Gospel of Mark can be found in Mark 2:23-28. In this passage, Jesus and his disciples are walking through a grain field on the Sabbath when his disciples begin to pick pieces of grain and eat them. The Pharisees see this and complain to Jesus, letting him know that his disciples are working on the Sabbath and not obeying the Law (vv.22-3). Jesus responds by reminding them of the story of King David when he went into the temple and gave the consecrated bread to his men to eat when they were hungry and in need (vv. 25-6). While this does not necessarily say that the sacredness of the bread was not important, it does imply that the people who ate the sacred bread were just as important as the bread itself. In this is seen the idea that the earthly things may be just as important as the heavenly things. This is further seen when Jesus himself in verse 27 reverses the binary oppositions held by the Pharisees. The Pharisees believed that the heavenly – the Sabbath – was more important than the earthly – man. Jesus turns this hierarchy on its head when he says, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath” (v. 27). Jesus himself is applying one of the principles of deconstruction when he does this.

There are several examples within the Gospel of Mark where Jesus is seen reversing the binary oppositions of the day as they were interpreted by the Pharisees. In the story of the calling of Levi, Jesus is seen eating at Levi’s house among the tax collectors and “sinners.” The Pharisees observe this and point out to his disciples the questionability of the company he is keeping (Mark 2:15-6). Jesus responds by saying, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (v. 17). In saying this, Jesus is reversing the binary opposition of “healthy over sick.” He instead places greater significance on the sick. This does not necessarily lower the importance of the healthy, however, since the obvious goal is to make the sick people into healthy people. It does say, though, that the sick people are just as important as the healthy people, and that God cares just as much about the sick as He does the healthy, or that He cares just as much about “sinners” as He does the righteous.

Jesus also reverses the binary oppositions of “first and last” a number of times within the Gospel of Mark. In Mark 9:33-7, Jesus asks his disciples what they were arguing about on the road, but they keep silent because they had been arguing about which one of them was the greatest. Jesus then says to them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all” (v. 35). Jesus reverses the binary opposition from “first over last” to “last over first” and in doing so places the position of “servant” into a position of honor.

Later, in Mark 10:35-45, Jesus is approached by James and John who ask him if they may sit at his right and his left in his glory. Jesus tells them that they do not know what they are asking, and the other disciples become upset with the two brothers. Jesus then calls all of them together and tells them that if any one of them want to be great, they must learn to be a servant, “and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all” (v. 44). Jesus again places the last above the first, and in so doing ranks being a slave or a servant above the position of ruler, thus reversing the normal understanding of this binary opposition which stated that those who are ranked first in their position in life are more important than those who are ranked last.

This reversal which places the role of servant above other roles is key to understanding the Gospel of Mark. The disciples have much difficulty in understanding this concept. They expect Jesus to be a powerful and domineering ruler who will establish the kingdom of God. They do not understand that Jesus must come as a servant in order to bring in the kingdom. It is ironic that those who are closest to Jesus fail to see him for who he really is. This reversal of the concept of first and last also applies to Jesus’ reversal of bigger and smaller. In Mark 4:30-2 Jesus tells the parable of the mustard seed. It is an unspoken implication that the people believe that bigger things are more important than smaller things, but Jesus tells them that the mustard seed starts out as the smallest only to become the greatest later. This does not say that bigger things are bad. On the contrary, the goal is that the smaller things become bigger. However, this does seem to say that the smaller thing is just as important as the larger thing, especially since the larger does not exist without first being small. This understanding of these binary oppositions is reflective of what Jesus is trying to teach about the kingdom of God and about himself. He is saying that in order to bring in the kingdom that he will rule he must first be a servant – he must first be small. Jesus displays this reversal in his existence as a human – God made into flesh. The disciples, however, fail to recognize just how important this concept is, which leads to another binary opposition which is discussed quite readily in Stephen Moore’s article on the deconstruction of Mark.

One of the main points of Stephen Moore’s article is that within the Gospel of Mark there is seen the binary opposition of insider vs. outsider. Normally, the insider would be the one considered as the more privileged or the greater one of the pair. However, Moore points out that often the disciples are left clueless as to what Jesus is trying to communicate to them, making them outsiders to his message. So it would seem that those who are on the inside, the ones who know Jesus the best, are really on the outside because they have very limited understanding as to who Jesus actually is. However, Moore also points out that within Mark’s gospel those who would normally be considered as outsiders, those who should not have understood who Jesus was, were the ones who understood who Jesus was more than his closest friends. The crowds tended to not know who Jesus was, Jesus’ disciples did not always have a good understanding of who he was, and even his own family said that he was out of his mind. However, there are examples within Mark of outsiders, of non-Jews, recognizing Jesus for who he really is. An example Moore uses in his article is that of the centurion who witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus. When the centurion sees all that happens and how Jesus died, he exclaims, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark 15:39). This Gentile, this Roman, this outsider, sees Jesus for who he really is, and in doing so becomes an insider. Mark shows through this reversal of the positions of these binary oppositions that Christianity is not for the Jew alone, but for the Gentile as well. Many of those who should have been insiders - the Jews - were outsiders, and a number of those who should have been outsiders - the Gentiles - were insiders. This concept is also seen in the story of the faith of the Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30). In that story, this Greek woman asks Jesus to heal her daughter who is suffering from demon-possession, and Jesus quotes to her a saying that says it is not right to give to the dogs the food that belongs to the children, indicating the established belief that the Jews were more important than the Gentiles. The woman responds by saying that “even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mark 7:28). Jesus tells her that this is a good reply and then heals her daughter. In this example, one sees Jesus’ inclusion of the Gentiles as well as the ability of the Gentiles to be considered as insiders.

Another example of the inclusion of the Gentiles as insiders can be seen in the two different stories of Jesus feeding the crowds. In the first account – the feeding of the five thousand – Jesus miraculously provides food for all of the people who have come to hear him teach. After the meal, the disciples pick up twelve basketfuls of leftovers. In the second account – the feeding of the four thousand – Jesus miraculously provides food for all of the people who have come to him, and after the meal the disciples pick up seven basketfuls of leftovers. It is important to note that in the first account, the miracle occurs in the land of the Jews. The second feeding occurs after Jesus and his disciples have traveled to the land of the Gentiles. It is also important to remember that the land of the Jews was referred to as “the land of the twelve” because of the twelve tribes of Israel, and that the land of the Gentiles in this area was referred to by the Jews as “the land of the seven,” which referred to the seven pagan nations that had lived there. It would seem then that the number of baskets leftover after each meal is related to the places in which the meals were eaten as well as the people who ate. It would seem that Jesus is telling his disciples as they gather the leftovers that they must gather disciples not only from the twelve tribes of Israel but also from the lands of the pagans. In giving this picture, Jesus includes the Gentiles in his kingdom, placing them as insiders. The irony of this comes later in Mark when Jesus mentions “the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod” (Mark 8:15). The disciples think he is talking about how they had forgotten to bring bread along. Jesus rebukes them for their lack of understanding and asks them if they remembered how many basketfuls of bread were left over from the five thousand and the four thousand. They tell him that there were twelve and seven. Jesus then asks, “Do you still not understand?” (Mark 8:16-21). The passage ends this way, with the disciples not understanding what Jesus is trying to tell them. Again, those closest to Jesus have become outsiders when they should have been insiders. It is even more ironic that the thing in this passage that they fail to comprehend is Jesus’ indication that the Gentiles are to be included as insiders.

These reversals of binary oppositions which are seen in Mark continually indicate to the reader that the Gospel is not something that only the Jews may receive. It is for Gentiles as well. The Jews did not understand and became outsiders. The Gentiles were the ones who ended up embracing Jesus. The binary opposition of “Jew over Gentile” which stated that the Jews were God’s chosen people and superior to the Gentiles is then placed on its head since the Jews failed to recognize the Messiah and the Gentiles ended up receiving him. Moore goes on to say that this reversal became commonplace over time. However, instead of the Gentile Christians being placed on an equal level with the Jews, the Gentiles eventually came to be seen as superior to the Jews. It is this line of thinking which led to such events as the crusades in which Gentile Christians not only slaughtered Muslims, but Jews as well. Stephen Moore points out that this is also the line of thought that eventually led to the slaughter of six million Jews by Nazi Germany in the holocaust of World War II. Moore points out that while it is true that the Gospel of Mark does not portray Jesus’ Jewish disciples in the highest regard and does indeed elevate the Gentile Christian, the placement of the Gentiles as superior to the Jews has taken the reversal of the binary opposition too far. Moore points out that Jesus’ disciples eventually do not remain in their ignorant and cowardice state. While Mark’s original ending does not show this and ends with the women knowing about the resurrection but being too afraid to tell anyone, the extended edition of Mark does give a glimpse of things that are to come. Jesus’ Jewish disciples will no longer be ignorant and cowards, but will become the founders of the church which took the Gospel to both the Jew and the Gentile and proclaimed that in Christ there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28). So deconstruction’s reversal of the binary opposition does not always mean that the traditionally inferior thing should be placed above the traditionally higher one, but deconstruction does say that the traditional hierarchies should most definitely be rethought.


___________________________________________________


[1] Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall), 126.

[2] Ibid.
[3] Stephen D. Moore, Deconstructive Criticism: Turning Mark Inside-Out, ed. Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D. Moore (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press), 98