141 thoughts on “A Book Review: “The Prodigal God””

1. Geoff, I guess my only issue is your view of interpretation is not Biblically supported. Can you Biblically support your interpretive views? Why should we accept them as a meassurement of God’s words? I mean, look at how the new testament authors use Old Testamant scriptures out of context! They change meanings and turn around the authors original intent.

   I don’t mean to be hostile at all, I am just wondering how you Biblically (not just rationally) derive your interpretive lense. – Jay

2. Hi Geoff,

   Have you delivered a sermon? Did it include anything beyond reading the Bible and then praying? Well, then you are just as guilty of interprtations as you are making Tim Keller all wrong about.
   He’s a “good guy” but yet you claim his interpretations are wrong, thus leading people astray. How does that equal him being good?

   The line where you said “I am not a big fan of writing a negative book review” is where you should have stopped. If you have a negative view of the book, take it up with him.

3. Jay,
   I wholeheartedly agree with you that you should not except my views without checking them out in Scripture. I do not agree with you that the new testament authors used the old testament scriptures out of context. I believe just opposite. The new testament authors were very careful and accurate in how they handled the old testament scriptures. A good example of this can be found in Romans 9:25-26. The original context in Hosea only speaks about Israel, but the apostle Paul sees the fulfillment of this prophecy in the church in the new covenant era, which is mostly gentiles. Please note that the authors of new testament scripture were guided by the holy spirit in their writings. It is impossible for the Spirit to mishandle scripture (2 Peter 3:14-16). Thanks for writing. Geoff

4. Eric,
   I want to encourage you to express your views but to do it in a manner that is not offensive (Eph. 4:29). But, to answer your question I have delivered many sermons and I do say many things apart from reading scripture and praying. In my book review I disagreed with Tim Keller regarding his interpretation of a parable. In disagreeing with his interpretation of the parable of the lost son I was not saying that everything he said in his book was wrong. I would encourage you to read or listen with a discerning mind. Whatever you hear or read that does not seem biblical should reject and whatever you hear or read that seems biblical you should accept. We never “throw the baby out with the bath water.” We are to examine all of life from a biblical point of view (Romans 12:2). Thanks for taking the time to write a response. Bye for now, Geoff

5. Geoff,

   Well actually we are both right in a way. First, the quotes in the NT are usually written in Greek translated from Hebrew or Aramaic (which ever Jesus actually spoke). Even before that translation, the actual speaker (Jesus for example) had to choose which version of the Hebrew scriptures to quote (LXX or Masoretic). Either way, we know that the quotes in the NT are not word for word with the Hebrew scriptures. If the scriptures are perfectly guided as you say and God is the Lord over all language, how is it possible for NT authors to misquote the OT scriptures? Is the Holy Spirit intentionally changing the scripture then? So either scripture is inspired but not perfectly guided or it is perfectly guided but intentionally changed by the Holy Spirit. What do you all think?

   Jay

6. Geoff,

   I also think that the example you give in Romans 9: 25-26 is a good example of my original argument that your interpretive lense says it is ok for a NT author to reinterpret the meaning of an OT author but not ok for a Holy Spirit filled Pastor to reinterpret NT author with what you admit is a very Biblical perspective (Keller’s). This seems inconsistent… What limitations have you developed for the Holy Spirit in interpretation for today? And why?

   Thanks, Jay

7. Well said Jay. I think you have made a very pertinent point.

8. Sorry to be a Blog Hog, but I really love the book and this discussion of it. However, this discussion about being “right” in our Biblical interpretation seems older brother-ish to me. I mean, we can’t just love, follow, and serve our Father for his sake, but we have to have the “right” way of our Father down too. Is having a strong view of Biblical inspiration about loving the Father or about justifying our own self righteous goodness? Can we trust a God that works through imperfect humans? Is most of our theology about loving the Father or controlling God with our goodness?

   I am really enjoying this, thanks for humoring me everyone.

9. Jay,
   Your comments are always welcome. We cannot say that Scripture is saying something unless we can prove it from other Scripture in context. Otherwise we would be just guessing as to what it means. God must interpret his own word. In Romans 9 Paul, under the control of the Holy Spirit, interpreted the passages in Hosea with divine authority. I never have that authority and therefore I can only say what I can prove from Scripture. Bye for now

10. Geoff,

    You keep saying or intimating, “We cannot say that Scripture is saying something unless we can prove it from other Scripture in context. Otherwise we would be just guessing as to what it means. God must interpret his own word.” This is quite a strong belief you have. I don’t remember any scripture verses teaching this or anything like it. I don’t remember Paul writing that he was under the control of the Holy Spirit or had some divine authority unlike other believers had. Stephen, the first Martyr gives a sermon in Acts reinterpreting the scriptures but I don’t think he was even given the “authority”, he just helped the Orphans and widows in the distribution.

    My point is that this persepctive of scripture ONLY interpreting scripture is not Biblical. Clearly the Holy Spirit is more important than the Scriptures right? I mean, the scriptures are God’s words, but the Spirit is God himself and there is a huge difference right? If I abide with the Spirit, I have God himself in me and the scriptures become the most effective tool. As I read the scriptures, it is the Holy Spirit that interprets the scriptures and not the scriptures interpreting themselves as much. It is God who gives authority and he gives it to whoever he desires. Can you prove anything about the scriptures without the Holy Spirit? Geoff, do you ever get the feeling you are placing rules on the Holy Spirit and limitations on God in an effort for control? I know I have done that and still do it too. Maybe it is just time to let that go. What are you afraid of if just anyone could have authority through the Holy Spirit?

    Love you brother,
    Jay

11. Jay,
    Paul’s letters are described by Peter as being on par with the Old Testament writings (2 Peter 3:15-16). The Holy Spirit does not work independently of the Scripture (John 16:12-15). We can only observe how God interprets his own word. There is no place in Scripture where we are told that the Holy Spirit guides us through our feelings or impressions. You said that I should not be afraid to do what you do. I am concerned to do everything in a manner that honors my Lord (1 Cor 10:31). Interpreting Scripture by relying on his interpretation is interpreting to the glory of God. Ponder these thoughts. I would love to talk with you further, but I think that the blog would not be the place to do it. I would be happy to talk with you on the phone. If you would like to do this then give me your phone number and I will call you, or you can call me at 480-924-4290 (H), 480-313-8558 (C). Bye for now

12. Geoff,

    I am encouraged by your scriptural stance in the many items brought up in this discussion. Just know you have a brother lifting you up in prayer. Keep serving Christ with the zeal He has given. God Bless.

13. Thanks for this discussion. I am glad that others have serious reservations about this book. This book has bothered me for several months, and I was appalled to learn that the author is well respected PCA minister.

    My conclusion after reading the book is that the author is saying that the major fault with the elder brother was that he did not go out, find his younger brother, and bring him home. That the elder brother’s failing was that he did not do that one additional thing. When Keller makes this point, I firmly believe that he is adding to the parable that Jesus told in an attempt to establish a basis for tasks that Keller wishes to lay on his fellow believers.

    I don’t think that Keller’s idea was being taught by Jesus at all. When I checked John Calvin’s commentary on this passage, I learned that Calvin thought that, for purposes of discussion, Jesus was willing to assume that the elder brother (i.e. the Pharisees) had been completely faithful in his relationship with the father. So, why then did the elder brother refuse to welcome his brother home? It would cost the elder brother nothing to do so. Thus, Calvin contradicts Keller. The error did not lie in failing to bring the younger brother home, but in failing to welcome him when he came back on his own.

    I concluded that Keller was trying to lay a task on his fellow believers. He is trying to say that we must perform a task, find and bring the younger brother home, to be right in God’s eyes. It looks to me like a new form of legalism.

    According to Keller, the elder brother believed that his works would secure his salvation. This was clearly true of the Pharisees, and it meant that they were not believers. Keller then goes on to assert that many churches are elder brother churches although he does not say which churches he is talking about. My question in this area revolves around who Keller is talking about. I am not aware of any theologically conservative, evangelical churches who believe that anyone is saved by work. I don’t think that even fundamentalist churches hold this view. So who is Keller talking about?

    I look forward to your comments.

14. Bob, I do not think that Keller is promoting a form of legalism. I believe that he is trying to present some concerns for us to consider. My problem is that I do not believe that he can get what he wants to get out of the parable of the lost son. There may be different kinds of unbelievers in the world but the parable of the lost son is not given to tell us about them. Thanks for taking the time to write.

15. Geoff and other posters,
    Firstly, I appreciate so much the tone of discussion on this site. It is a blessing that we as brothers and sisters in Christ can discuss differences without falling in to the personal attacks that so characterize most modern debates.

    Secondly,I agree with Geoff that it is important for us to use scripture in the manner in which it was intended. “A book that means anything means nothing” was an oft used declaration of a former professor of mine. To allow a student of scripture to use it in a way that was not meant by the original author chips away at the validity and strength of the Bible.

    It was argued that since the Spirit guides us we can interpret scripture in the same way as the Apostles. We must be careful in this line of thinking because this means that anything written by a believer or any interpretation of scripture by a believer can now be put on the same level as scripture. This is not the intent, but it is the outcome.

    In Him,
    Ryan

16. As I read the thoughtful comments presented herein, I do wonder if some of the comments reflect an weak or undeveloped understanding of the parables…format, style and so on… as well as a weak understanding of the Greek language, culture at the time they were given by Christ and even the culture and concerns of Luke at the time he wrote. There are at least 100 texts on the parables and their interpretation, with a tendency for these texts to build on the previous knowledge. In this respect, one recent text that may prove to help us understand and add color and excitement to our understanding could be THE PARABLES OF JESUS by Arland Hultgren.

17. Hi Geoff,
    I just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed reading through the blog and its comments. I also appreciate your patient responses, repeating often the core of your concerns that Keller is not interpreting scripture with scripture. With that I concur completely.
    With that said, I just wanted to add a thought (I truly hope you don’t mind this blog lasting well over a year!) Some of the things in the book are certainly expanded on well past the context of the parable. It is true that the main point Jesus was making was as He said, there is more rejoicing in heaven over the repentant sinner than over those who have no need to repent. But I also believe that there are observations which we can make from the parable(s) that are valuable for us, even if not the main point. For instance, Keller’s description of God as recklessly extravagant, although never stated in the context is evident from observing the father’s actions. I don’t consider that interpretation – just observation. in another example, in Luke 8 when the farmer is sowing seed on all sorts of soil, I observe that the farmer is liberal (ie. generous, not theologically! ) with the seed – the word of God even though that thought is not included in Jesus’ interpretation. I can and believe should learn from and apply the truth gleaned from observation. I believe in that light that more of what Keller writes is acceptable for instruction than just the main point of the parable – celebrate over the repentant ones.
    Thanks again for the delightful back and forth!

18. Dave,
    I really appreciate your thoughts. It is one thing to say that as I read scripture I am reminded of something, it is quite another thing to say that God is intending me to take this from a particular section of scripture. That is my concern. The amount of seed the farmer sowed is not mentioned in scripture and there is no comment on it, therefore I do not think that it would be right to read something into it. Please feel free to comment on my comments. Bye for now, Geoff

19. Thanks to everyone for the helpful discussions. I’m puzzled about one thing which a lot of folk in our baptist church seem to think is some new teaching by Keller – “that the elder brother paid the price for his prodigal sibling”… Although I’m not usually stupid, I simply cannot see how Keller can extrapolate the parable to this extent, so would be grateful if someone could explain. It has always seemed to me that the parable points to the endless saving love of our Saviour and that “there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repents than…” How does Keller get from this to the “elder brother” – who is an unforgiving, bitter, self-righteous pain, “paying the price for his younger brother’s salvation.” And if he did, “HOW” is he paying price? Maybe Keller isn’t saying that, but I’m worried that people in my church are heading in to deep and dangerous waters.

    Thanks, Barry

20. I believe that “paying” refers to the fact that the elder brother was to receive 100% of the estate. This means that the feast, using the fatted calf, the number of attendees, etc. was at the elder brother’s expense. To make sure that we understood this fact, rather than have the elder brother say “Your spending my inheritance and wasting it on this extravagant feast,” instead the elder brother says something like “I didn’t even get a goat.” Nevertheless, the elder brother did “pay” for the feast against his will; it is at this point that we also might examine our own behavior with respect to “new” members of the church. We all need a savior indeed.

    I do believe that Jesus gave the initial parable for those around him at the time. However, I also believe that he intended for the parables to be studied and that reactions, in addition to the original reaction of the hearers, would develop. In this respect, Keller is sharing his reaction, which might be a bit different, after we study the parable, than ours. I do believe he is adding dimension to the parable, and that we should carefully consider if we want to adopt this same dimension. Keller does mention that the key point is grace. He clearly states this in the DVD as well. We must not lose sight of that as we add additional thoughts and understanding.

21. Gene, thanks for your thoughts. My concern is that reading into the elder brother’s reactions to spending the father’s money on his brother does not seem to have any relevance for us. Unless Jesus interprets the parable we cannot read other stuff into it for we are only guessing. That is my quibble with Keller’s take on the parable.

22. Geoff, thanks for this. This is my quibble too. I’ve spoken on the elder brother several times in terms of his bitterness, unforgiveness and denial of his own brother (“this son of yours”) and seen lives changed as people repent. Perhaps we need to be careful not to fragment the Godhead – the Father paid the price in many ways in this parable – it seems to me the elder brother was only worried about his share – hence the reassurance from the Father that “all I have is yours” (but importantly, only when I die) – so how could the elder brother pay from what he did not yet have – he could easily have died before his father! I get really worried by these new interpretations, Why do we need them, and what do they add to our faith. Most of us have large chunks of the elder brother in us – but if we don’t get ithem healed we are paying a different kind of price… As C.S. Lewis said, in the end there are only two kinds of people: those who say to God, YOUR will be done, and those in the end to whom GOD says THY will be done (The Great Divorce). If this parable does anything it throws this into sharp focus which needs no additions. Sorry – I don’t mean to offend anyone by my comments, but scripture warns`us against adding anything to it, and I think Keller is stretching it a bit. There is nothing wrong with what he says as a “concept”, it is his extrapolating it on to this parable, which I can’t agree with.

    Barry

23. Geoff, there is absolutely relevance in seeing the elder brother’s bitterness at all the extravagence spent on celebrating the younger brother’s return. Churches are filled with people who are unwilling to pay the price to bring lost “younger brothers” home.

    I get discouraged every time I see people agreeing with this review, because a) I think it comes to poor and incorrect conclusions and b) it leads to people misunderstanding the parable and throw out the important warnings that Jesus was trying to make (according to the context of 15:1-2) to religious types like me and the others who read this blog. We need to embrace the message of this parable, which was primarily intended to challenge and invite Pharisees to repent of their religion and embrace the gospel.

24. Luke, I agree with you regarding the context of the parable. It was the Pharisees who were refusing to see their need of the gospel. But the parable itself proclaims the joy in heaven over those who repent for this is the reason Jesus came, “to seek and save those who are lost.” Each of the three parables in Luke 15, the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son, all are saying the same thing. The mistake that is made is in trying to take something from a passage that is not part of its message. There are plenty of other places in Scripture that condemn the religious unbeliever. My only quibble is in trying to use the parable of the lost son to this end. God does interpret his own word and we do need to resist the temptation to guess as to what it means. Bye the way, thanks for taking the time to read the comments and to respond to them.

25. I think we do somewhat of a disservice when we do not interpret the parable in light of its culture when it was given and when it was written. For example, when Jesus says in Matthew 10:41-43 to give someone a cup of cold water, is he restricting us only to giving cold water, or does he mean more than water if that is a person’s need? (Or when he tells us to feed the hungry, does he mean once, twice, forever? Or when he tells us that if our eye offends us to pluck it out?) At a basic level, can we read a parable (or sayings of Jesus) and then talk about it without giving an interpretation? In fact, as we translate from Greek (language and culture) to our own modern American, don’t we also give an interpretation?

    So, I see THE PRODIGAL GOD as providing an interpretation of what one person sees in the parable. As a basis for his various interpretations, he is guided by his understanding of the culture. The author does seem to make it clear that the main message of the parable is grace.

    I am not convinced myself of the accuracy or correctness of all of his interpretation, and that is what Bible study is all about…the Holy Spirit will guide me. Certainly, the HS has also guided Geoff in this discussion…yes?

    So, here is a new, basic question: When Jesus gave a parable, was he looking at it for its instant message and reaction…sort of the instant, overall impression? Or did he give it with the idea that his words would be studied, discussed (by the high priest or by the Christians in the 1st or 21st Century) and dissected and secondary meanings and impressions would develop? If we do indeed get the initial impression (grace of the Father in this case), is it OK to then go further into the story? Is it OK to point out that when the father lifts his robe and runs that it is especially unusual behavior for the time? Is it OK to point out the significance of the event when he gives the son shoes and a ring? It seems that at some point we need to draw a line that indicates the extent of our interpretation…where is that line? If you agree that there is a line, is the line fixed or moving as time moves on?

26. I have wanted to come back, and comment on this topic again for quite awhile. Thus, I am glad that it has again become active. Since my first comment, I have gone back and reviewed the book again. Even before reviewing the book, I looked at what John Calvin had to say about this parable. In my opinion, Calvin got it right and my comments are drawing on what I think Calvin said as well as what I think.

    I think there are two groups of sinners represented in the parable. They are the sinners who know they need forgiveness and are seeking it, and the religious leaders who question the way in which Jesus welcomes the sinners. While the parable does indeed celebrate the character of the Father who is eager to welcome and forgive, I think its focus is on the elder brother (i.e. religious leaders) who are unwilling to extend forgiveness. Calvin suggests that Jesus gave the benefit of the doubt to the elder brother. That, up to the time of the younger brother’s return, the elder brother had lived an honorable life and had carried out his responsibilities. Jesus does not ask the religious leaders (elder brothers) about their past behavior, but focuses on why they are now unwilling to see the sinners forgiven and accepted. It will not cost them anything if mercy is extended to the sinners. Thus, their great sin lies in opposing forgiveness to those who come seeking mercy.

    My problem with Keller is that he claims that the elder brother is guilty of something else. Keller seems to claim that the great sin of the elder brother was that he failed to go out, find his younger brother, and bring him back home. In my version of the book, this charge is made at the bottom of page 81 and the top of page 82 (i.e. “This is what the elder brother in the parable should have done…….”). The implication to me is that the elder brother did not fail because he relied on all of the things he had done (his works) to win his Father’s love and acceptance, he failed because he did not perform this one additional task. That need for one additional task is what causes me to say that Keller is suggesting a new form of legalism. There are tasks that need to be done in order to be a ‘good’ elder brother in God’s eyes. This suggestion seems to be confirmed later in the book as Keller lays great stress on our responsibility to heal the sick, feed the hungry, care for the poor, and renew the physical world. These are all things that we must do to win God’s acceptance. This is a new legalism.

    While these activities are indeed things that Christians should consider, they are not addressed by this parable. Jesus never suggested that the elder son sinned by failing to bring his younger back home. Keller errs by attempting to make the parable say something that it does not say or even suggest. We are simply not at liberty to stretch the teaching of Jesus to make it support our own agenda. If we do that, we can recreate the Bible in our own image, but it will have only us for its authority.

27. To Bob Peterson,
    Well written. Thanks. I am in agreement.

28. Geoff, perhaps I don’t understand what you’re saying. It seems as though you agree with me (and Keller) that the context of 15:1-2 involves Pharisees who are grumbling about Jesus’ love for vile sinners, but then you are unwilling to see the older brother in the parable as a picture of these grumbling Pharisees. Am I understanding you correctly? If so, why won’t you acknowledge that contextual connection? If not, please help me clarify.

    I don’t disagree with the fact that one of the things taught in this parable is about God’s joy when somebody repents. This is surely the main point. However, Jesus absolutely seems to be targeting the Pharisees with the older brother. It’s as though he’s saying, “God is delighting in those who repent. Why don’t you?”

29. Luke,
    Again, thanks for taking the time to comment. My point is that the parable is not about different types of unbelievers. You seem to be missing the fact that all three parables are saying the same thing. Geoff

30. Been a while since I posted, but been following on e-mail – Geoff aren’t you missing the point of the context [v1-2] and the Older Brother in the story. Yes definitely Jesus is trying to highlight the audacious grace of God, he tells three stories to highlight it – but the sting is in the tail of the last story for the Pharisees, Luke Simmons has said it so well. “God is delighting in those who repent, why won’t you?” Otherwise there is no need for the older brother in the story, it’s redundant [indeed I've heard the passage preached on with no mention of this part of the story]. If you don’t see this as part of the message, you have to ask yourself why did Jesus tell the older brother’s story?

31. Paul,
    Welcome back. Let’s not miss the point of the original blog. My criticism of Tim Keller’s book is his desiring to take the details of the parable and to read into them much significance. This I do not believe that you can do without biblical authority. By that I mean that Jesus would have to interpret his own parable, as he does with some other parables. He does not interpret the details of this parable and therefore we must only take the major point.

32. Geoff, I don’t think that I’m missing the main point or the reality that all three parables have a common main point. I agree that Jesus is talking about God’s joy in recovering the lost. But you are not sufficiently addressing why the older brother is part of the last story. When I mentioned this in my first comment (over a year ago), you replied:

    “the Lord mentions the response of the elder brother [because] the context of that whole section of scripture with the focus being on the response of the Jewish leaders to who Jesus was spending his time with. Israel is a temporary, unbelieving picture of the people of God and therefore they could not grasp why Jesus came to this earth.”

    So we are both saying that the older brother is representing a kind of unbeliever. I’m saying it represents religious types who look down their noses at obviously sinful people, you said it represents the unbelief of the Jewish leaders.

    Do you stand behind that interpretation? Or do you believe that since Jesus doesn’t explicitly say what the older brother is to represent then we should not draw any conclusions about it? The older brother seems to be much more than a “detail” of the story. “Feeding pigs” is a detail of the story. The older brother is not.

33. Geoff,
    If I really want to tear this parable apart and make up some meanings that were not intended, and not just look for the meaning that the scribes and pharisees might have had, I wonder if I should ask myself (especially after just reading about the 1 lost sheep that was searched for by the shepherd, leaving the 99, etc.) why the father did not go after the lost son, find him, bring him home, have a party and then the parable could end. Instead, this parable has the elder son’s actions added. But might I ask if the real sin is that the father did not go after the son? Ridiculous it seems.

    On p. 45 in my edition, Keller states “…the prerequisite for receiving the grace of God is to know you need it.” I find this strange, as I thought God’s grace came to me and to everyone without any actions on my or their part. I seem to also recall something from Luther that said “I cannot believe on my own….” Do I have something incorrect? Didn’t the elder son receive the father’s grace even though the elder son did not recognize he was getting it?

34. Luke,
    I do understand the context of the parable concerning the jewish leaders. I also understand that the old brother would represent the jewish leaders. Beyond that I would not go. Keller goes WAY beyond that and seeks to use the parable in a manner that was not intended by God. Let us not lose track of the discussion. The details of the parable are not relevant unless Jesus says so. Take care, Geoff

    ps. Luke, I would be happy to talk with you on the phone. Which is a much more satisfying medium to discuss Scripture.

35. Geoff,
    I wonder how a Rabbi would interprete this parable? I wonder what insights a Jewish person could prevail on us. I believe this is a cultural lesson that Jesus is pulling out of everyday experiences, there are are many inuindos that we Americans just don’t see.

36. Hi Geoff,
    Reading your assessment of The Prodigal God represents my exact interpretation of same. As relative new comers to Calvinism, my wife and I have been fellowshipping at a PCA church now, for over a year. Our Sunday School class recently chose this book as our study matierial for the next several weeks. I read the entire book in advance of class; the class covers one chapter per week.

    As I read the teacher’s outline and listened to his comments, I began to realize we were off course, way off. One of his comments stated that both sons were lost. Luke 15:31, 32, for me, cannot be reconciled to this position. Another stated position suggested that the parable was a warning against a love of material wealth.

    I didn’t say anything, as I did not want to embarass anyone, or draw attention to myself. Instead, I just sat in anguish over those that seemed to be nodding and commenting in agreement.

    As you stated earlier, this was clearly a time of rejoicing over one that was lost, was dead but now is alive!

    Thanks for your post. I am encouraged by our unity on this book.

    Sincerely, Rick

37. Buzz, thanks for comments, but in the future I need you to leave your real name on this blog. I do not know how a rabbi would interpret the parable. But what we need to know is how God want us to interpret it.

    Rick, thanks for your comments. I would encourage you to make your thoughts known in a loving manner. You must assume that those in your church do want to handle Scripture in the best way possible. I have really benefited from other folks sharing their biblical thoughts with me.

38. HI Geoff,
    Just discovered your blog! I thought I was the only person in the world who thought that Tim Keller used the word of God wrongly in this book!! There is a missing scene at the end of this parable and Jesus leaves us to wonder about the elder brother.
    So although Tim Keller’s teaching about the elder brother is basically good for us to hear and think about, etc, he should have used a whole lot of scripture to substantiate and develop this teaching and not drawn it out from the ‘missing scene’ and and otherwise stretched this parable. I would be more ready to accept Tim Keller’s teaching if he had done it a different way.

39. The act of interpreting the interpreter is again an interpretation.
    Church history is full of examples (Council of Nicea, etc.) of interpretations. How can we humans do anything else?

40. Marjorie, keep up your careful handling of Scripture.

    Bill, Yes, we all make interpretations, but…. we must make interpretations that are based on a careful handling of scripture. God must be the interpreter of his own word. Thanks for your comments.

41. Geoff,
    I have to say that I think your opening line applies more to your review than to the book. (“Tim Keller misses the point of the parable and spends the rest of the book addressing issues that have nothing to do with the parable.”)

    This section of Luke begins with “1Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. 2And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.” (Luke 15 – ESV)

    Tim is not alone in understanding that the intended audience of this parable is the Pharisees (Adams, Tyson and a number of others). In fact, the intended audience for all of these “lost” parables is not just the “tax collectors and sinners” but the Pharisees as well. When we reach the “prodigal son” parable, the focus is even more directed at the Pharisees (those that fit the description of the “older brother.”) The point being that it is they who will be standing outside of the feast due to their refusal to see their own sin and not exercising forgiveness toward the ones that they see a “real” sinners.

    I don’t agree with all of Tim’s premises in the book, but I am pretty certain he is right on this on..

42. Bill,
    Thanks for your comments. We will just have to agree to disagree. Though I do think that you missed my point. My difference with Tim is over what he sought to get from the parable. Unless Jesus interprets the details then we can only take the major point. Please feel free to interact over future blogs. Geoff

43. I have just finished reading the book the Prodigal God. Reading it, I tried to put myself in the position of the elder brother and what I would do in his position. The elder brother is standing outside of the festival party, having argued with his father and expressed his feelings and is emotional about the entire situation.

    The parable does not say what happened next. It led me to think what I would do if I were the elder brother. I would hope that the elder brother would let go of his anger, disappointment and negative emotions, swallow his pride, walk into the festival party, embrace his father and apologize for his outburst and then accept his brother with open arms as his father did.

44. Vicky, much thanks for responding to the blog. You are seeking to thoughtfully apply this parable to your life. But, I do think that you ought to give some thought to the purpose of the parable. This is one of three parables (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son) that all say the same thing. The details are not significant since Jesus does not interpret the details (as he does in the parable of the sower and the parable of the weeds).

45. Hello,

    You wrote me last year stating that we can “agree to disagree”.

    I still believe that any interpretation is just that – an interpretation. This applies to your comments as well as other “interpreters”.

    Bless you,

    Bill VH

46. I’ve read this book and have long debated amongst other Christians it trustworthiness including pastors. I agree with your assessment and would not recommend this book either and I’m a PCA Elder. I understand Keller’s message and agree with many points, but he loses the effectiveness by using this parable. It boils down to rightly dividing (interpreting) the parable. My main issue has to do with Keller claiming that both sons are unsaved, which the parable clearly states otherwise, “My son (elder brother), the father said, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours.” Jesus is addressing the jealousy of the Pharisees (elder brother), just like God addressed Jonah’s anger with God for saving the Ninevites.

47. Russ,
    With as much respect as I can muster, you are totally off base. Keller DOES NOT say that both are unsaved.. He says BOTH are in sin – there is a VAST difference, I am sure you will agree. And he is RIGHT!!!! Both are in sin, the younger brother is a flagrant sinner – as Jack Miller used to say a “technicolor” sinner, the older brother is a Pharsaical legalist, who considers himself to be righteous – and Tim is right. that “type” of sinner is in THE most dangerous place a person can be in. In my 25 years of pastoral ministry, I have definitely found that to be true. While Tim may stretch some points – this is NOT one of them. You need to re-read the book – especially as a PCA elder..

48. Admitted ignorance…what is a “PCA”? Protestant Church in America?

49. Russ, I am not sure that you are truly giving much respect. Please share your thoughts in a bit more toned down fashion. I do agree with you regarding both of them being sinners, but I do not think that that was the point of the parable. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Geoff

50. Geoff,
    I believe that the last comment that you made was intended for me, and not for Russ. You are right, I was not respectful. Sometimes my emotions get in the way of my communication. I ask forgiveness for my tone from you and especially from Russ.