PRODIGAL CHRIST: THE PARABLE OF THE PRODIGAL SON IN THE THEOLOGIES OF JULIAN OF NORWICH AND KARL BARTH Kendall Walser Cox Charlottesville, VA Master of Divinity, Regent College, University of British Columbia, 2006 Bachelor of Arts, Wake Forest University, 2002 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Religious Studies University of Virginia August 2014 Contents ABSTRACT iii INTRODUCTION 1 1 Introduction to the Parable of the Prodigal Son and Parable Interpretation 35 I. The Parable of the Prodigal Son and Parable Theory 35 1. A Survey of Theological and Exegetical Engagement with the Parable 39 2. Developments in Parable Interpretation 47 II. Parable, Allegory, and Spiritual Interpretation 55 1. Parable and Allegory 56 2. Allegory and Spiritual Interpretation 61 3. “Allegorizing” and the Problem of Parabolic Reference 71 III. Metaphor in Theories of Parable 75 1. Definitions of Metaphor in Theories of Parable 76 i. Two Inadequate Definitions: the Rhetorical and the Emotive 78 ii. Interactive and Interanimative Approaches to Metaphor 86 2. Metaphors and Models, Fiction and Redescription 93 2 Intertextuality, Phenomenology, and the Parable 97 I. Intertextuality and the Metaphorization of Discourse 97 1. Between Metaphor and Parable 100 2. Structuralism and the Openness of the Narrative Form 102 3. Metaphorization and Intertextuality 110 II. Vision and Parable: Toward a Phenomenology of Parable 123 1. Being-Seen: a Phenomenological Reading of Luke 15:11-32 126 2. Vision and Conversion in Theories of Parable and Metaphor 137 3. A Phenomenological Account of Parable 142 3 Julian’s Example of the Lord and Servant and the “Dome” of God 154 I. The Example of the Lord and Servant 155 1. The Example and Its Excess 155 i. The Example in Nuce 156 ii. On the Excess of Identity and Julian’s Interpretive Method 159 2. The Example Shown Double 161 i. Julian’s Spiritual Interpretation of the Example 163 ii. A Soteriological Reading 168 3. An Eternal “Oning” in the Trinity 171 II. Two “Domes” 175 1. The “Fair Dome” of God and the “Medeled Deeming” of Humanity 178 2. Substance, Sensuality, and the “Godly will” 181 i. Julian’s Redefinition of Terms 182 ii. The Proper Christological Reference 188 3. The Example as an “Answer” 191 i. Configuring the Contraries 192 ii. Genuine Self-Knowledge vs. Sinful Self-Accusation 197 4 Atonement, the Motherhood of God, and Julian’s Retelling of the Prodigal Son 205 I. Atonement and Mutual “Beclosure” 206 1. The Theme of “Beclosure” 208 i 2. Atonement as Being-Seen-in-Christ 209 3. Trinity and Eternal Election: Seeing God in Christ 213 i. The Trinity in Christ 214 ii. The Meaning is Love 216 iii. Eternal Atonement in the Trinity 220 iv. Inclusive Patterns of Trinitarian Language 224 II. “Reduction” to the Motherhood of God 226 1. Gendered Theological Language and Its Function for Julian 229 i. Basic Presuppositions about Gendered Theological Language 229 ii. The “Motherly” Kindness of God 233 2. The Motherhood of Christ and the Motherhood of the Trinity 237 i. Maternal Associations in Medieval Religious Writing 238 ii. Christ’s “Office” of Motherhood 241 iii. The Trinity as Mother 246 3. The Motherly “Dome” of God and the Example of the Lord and Servant 249 i. The Homeliness and Courtesy of God 251 ii. The Example of Mother and Child 253 iii. Return to a Motherly Father 256 5 Barth’s Interpretation of the Parable of the Prodigal Son as the Parable of Reconciliation 261 I. Barth’s Exegesis of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in §64.2 263 1. Barth’s “Direct” Interpretation of the Parable 264 2. On the Way to an “Indirect” Interpretation 266 3. Barth’s “Indirect” Interpretation 270 i. Going out 272 ii. Homecoming 277 iii. Clues from the Second Parable 283 4. A Parable of Retrieval 286 II. The Parable of Reconciliation 289 1. The Parable as a Thumbnail of Reconciliation 290 2. Intertextual Predication and the Christology of the Parable 297 6 Election and Revelation: the Parable of the Prodigal Son as the Parable of God 310 I. Prodigality and Election 311 1. The Doctrine of Election and the Original Prodigality of God 312 i. Bracketing Debates Over Divine Ontology 313 ii. The Basic Shape of Election 316 2. Parable and Decree 322 3. A Different Set of Correlates 332 II. Reconciliation is Revelation 334 1. From Loving-Kindness to Obedience Defined as “Subjection” 337 2. Rethinking the Son’s Subordination: Questions and Problems 347 3. Revelation of Love: Divine Motherhood or Divine Sub-Ordinance? 357 CONCLUSION 361 I. Theology as “Theanthropology” 363 II. Being-Seen-in-Christ as Ethical Imperative 366 III. Parable as Phenomenology 371 IV. Parable as Christology: Toward a “Parabolic Theology” 373 BIBLIOGRAPHY 382 ii ABSTRACT This dissertation sets Karl Barth’s exegesis of Luke 15:11-32 in Church Dogmatics IV/2 in conversation with Julian of Norwich’s Example of the Lord and Servant in A Revelation of Love. I present Julian’s story as a gloss on the Parable of the Prodigal Son that prefigures Barth’s later Christological interpretation in which he identifies Jesus Christ with the younger son. Drawing on Paul Ricoeur’s account of intertextuality, I demonstrate the coherence of such an identification and argue that Julian and Barth discern an overlooked interpretive trajectory arising from the Lukan text itself. Finally, I assess the radical doctrinal implications of their interpretations and consider the significance of parable as a mode of theology that is particularly well suited for Christological and Trinitarian reflection. iii “…and a voice said, ‘There is one who is good. There is one who can see all without hating.’”1 1 Tomas Tranströmer, “In the Nile Delta,” The Great Enigma: New Collected Poems, trans. Robin Fulton (New York: New Directions, 2006), 62. iv INTRODUCTION But if I look up and fix my eyes on the aid of the divine mercy, this happy vision of God [on the cross] soon tempers the bitter vision of myself… This vision of God is not a little thing. It reveals him to us… His very nature is to be good, to show mercy always and to spare. —Bernard of Clairvaux, Sermon 36, On the Song of Songs II.1 Introduction to the Topic The eternal Son is the prodigal Son—that is the provocative implication at the heart of Karl Barth’s exegesis of Luke 15:11-32, in §64.2 of Church Dogmatics IV: The Doctrine of Reconciliation.2 His Christological reading appears to be unique in the history of the parable’s interpretation, and it is particularly unusual for a modern reader such as himself.3 Yet we find a revealing precedent for it in Julian of Norwich’s medieval Example of the Lord and Servant, in Chapter 51 of A Revelation of Love.4 Her example is a gloss on the Lukan parable that recasts the figures of the father and son as a “courteous” lord and “ready” servant. Much like Barth long after her, the distinctive feature of her interpretation is the close connection she draws between the identity of Jesus Christ and that of the fallen or wayward one. The subsequent body of research sets Julian’s example in conversation with Barth’s exegesis, showing the striking ways in which her theological retelling of the 1 Bernard of Clairvaux, The Works of Bernard of Clairvaux, vol. 3, On the Song of Songs II, trans. Kilian Walsh, O.C.S.O. (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1983), 179. 2 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956-75). Henceforth it will be abbreviated CD, referred to by volume title (e.g., The Doctrine of Reconciliation), and cited simply by volume/part, page (e.g., IV/2, 21). 3 Throughout my dissertation, I will refer to this passage as “the Parable of the Prodigal Son” because the story is best known in English by this name. Notably, however, the epithet is absent from the Greek and pushes the story in a certain direction. Barth uses the German title “Der verlorene Sohn,” which more clearly relates to the other two parables in Luke 15 (of the Lost Sheep and Lost Coin) and draws attention to the parallelism “lost and found” that is central to Barth’s Christological reading. Julian’s “Example of the Lord and Servant” prioritizes neither prodigality nor lostness but accidental fallenness and blindness. 4 Julian of Norwich, The Writings of Julian of Norwich: A Vision Showed to a Devout Woman and A Revelation of Love, eds. Nicholas Watson and Jacqueline Jenkins (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006). Julian’s two texts will be referenced as follows: A Vision or the Short Text (ST), cited by section (e.g., Sec. 12); and A Revelation or the Long Text (LT), cited by chapter (e.g., ch. 52) or chapter and line (e.g., 52.1-2). Where no text is indicated, citations are from the Long Text. 1 biblical parable prefigures his. Throughout my analysis, I draw three primary points of comparison between the texts under consideration, concerning: 1) their intertextual engagement with narrative-parable, 2) their unusual identification of the lost or fallen son or servant with the eternal Son of God, and 3) the doctrinal implications of this identification. My interest is in how Julian’s and Barth’s respective retellings of the parable lead them each to claim that, in Julian’s words, “God never began to love humankind,” because, as Barth maintains, “from all eternity” God makes “the being of this other [God’s] own being.”5 In light of the prominent role the Parable of the Prodigal Son plays in guiding them to such a conclusion as well as the remarkable resonances between their interpretations, I think we are invited to consider two further possibilities: first, that Julian and Barth both detect an overlooked trajectory belonging to the text itself; and, second, that parable is an exemplary and enduring theological genre, an irreducible mode of theology that is suited for Christological and Trinitarian reflection.