In-Depth Studies Blog

39 Responses to “A Book Review: “The Prodigal God””

1. Holiday Longing, on April 10th, 2009 at 12:14 pm Said:

   Hi, I think you missed one crucial point. The sons do not necessarily represent two different types of unbelievers but two different types of believers since in our flesh, we serve our idols through either legalism(in the Christian version – self-righteousness) or licentiousness (in the Christian version – cheap grace). I don’t think Keller is guilty of reading into scripture any more than most interpretations of parables. As long as the conclusions are consistent with scripture as a whole (which Keller’s invariably are), I don’t see a problem with what the interpreter has done.

2. Holiday Longing, on April 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm Said:

   I meant to say it can represent both believers and unbelievers.

3. Geoff Volker, on April 10th, 2009 at 5:55 pm Said:

   Thanks for your comment, but I do think that the book is all about two types of unbelievers. I encourage you to check it out more carefully. But thanks again for making the comment. Geoff

4. Luke, on April 14th, 2009 at 6:41 am Said:

   Hey Geoff, I’ve read the book and your review raised a couple of questions:

   1. Could you give some examples of places where you think Keller is interpreting the details?

   2. If the parable is not really about two types of people (irreligious younger brothers & religious older brothers), but is simply a story to show the joy of God in welcoming lost sinners (as the parables of the sheep and coin are), then why didn’t the parable just end in verse 24? Why did Jesus even bring up the issue of the elder brother?

   Thanks!

5. Geoff Volker, on April 15th, 2009 at 9:43 am Said:

   Luke, much thanks for your comments. Some examples of Keller seeking to interpret details where he should not can be found in his discussion of the young brother as a certain kind of unbeliever. It can also be found in his discussion of the significance of the father’s feast. In both instances Keller is only guessing what Jesus had in mind, and since Jesus does not interpret the details of this parable for us we ought not to do it.

   With regard to your 2nd point as to why the Lord mentions the response of the elder brother I would say that that is 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.

   How is the new church plant coming along?

6. Larry, on April 17th, 2009 at 5:54 pm Said:

   Hi, Geoff! Thanks for your thoughts. For me, the most striking point of Keller’s book came from his explanation of the title. The prodigal – the one who spends everything until he has nothing left – is the younger son, to be sure. But when Keller pointed out that God is also a “prodigal,” I worshipped! In the intro, Keller wrote, “God’s reckless grace is our greatest hope, a life-changing experience, and the subject of this book.” Although you may disagree with his interpretation of the particular parable, would you agree that Keller encourages us to view God’s overwhelming mercy in a new light?

7. Geoff Volker, on April 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm Said:

   Larry, Timothy Keller is one of the good guys. He embraces a very clear understanding of the God of Scripture. I agree with you. Keller describes our God as one of overwhelming mercy. We can disagree with an interpretation but wholeheartedly agree with the heart of the writer. Geoff

8. Todd, on April 30th, 2009 at 9:54 am Said:

   This is not a critique of the book or your review of the book, but as I read through your review you point out that Keller is mishandling scripture by assuming its application because Jesus did not apply it specifically. You point out that the point of the parable is “all about God rejoicing over one sinner who repents”. My question would be, where does Jesus specifically apply that as the point of the parable and how is your assumption on the text different than Kellers?

9. Geoff Volker, on May 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm Said:

   Todd, each of the three parables of Luke 15, The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin, and the Lost Son all tied to the opening scene where the Pharisees and the teachers of the law do not understand why he came and therefore they criticized his spending time with the “sinners.” The first two parables end with the same statement regarding rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents. The third parable, the Lost Son, begins with the statement, “Jesus continued (NIV)”. This parable is giving the same message in a more detailed story. The handling of this parable is a great illustration of our hermeneutics. Follow the argument and if Jesus does not interpret the details then we should not.

10. Lambie, on June 23rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm Said:

    Geoff: I thoroughly enjoyed the book Prodigal God, and I thoroughly enjoyed your review, and I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion that followed your review. I came away from it all with the distinct impression that truly committed, Bible-believing interpreters of scripture all have varying frames of reference that determine how they understand Scripture — and that your frame of reference is definitely a factor in determining which details of a parable to incorporate into interpretation and which details to relegate to the status of “just filling out the story.” Scripture resists fitting too neatly, too completely, into any system of interpretation. Any system of interpretation leaves loose ends here and there. Yours sort of leaves the elder brother out of what you say is the main point of the parable, making the elder brother part of the story a loose end that you then fit into your “God’s plan that Israel not believe (except for a remnant)” interpretive framework. God’s-plan-for-Israel is a perfectly legitimate scriptural framework, except it’s not especially relevant to what you say was the sole point of the parable — God’s joy over a sinner who repents.

    You’ve added your interpretation to a part of the parable that Jesus didn’t interpret. You did so from your broader scriptural frame of reference. That’s not wrong, just worth pointing out. Todd’s observation (that Todd made ever so gently) rings true — while questioning Keller’s interpretive assumptions because Jesus did not make those applications, you are comfortable about applying your own interpretive assumptions to the elder brother even though Jesus did not interpret it that way.

    We all do that. We just all need to be aware of it

11. Geoff Volker, on June 25th, 2009 at 11:06 am Said:

    Lambie,
    Much thanks for your comments, though I do not think that you followed my train of thought. God’s plan for Israel, in my opinion, is already established by Scripture. The point of the parable is pretty straight forward as you have mentioned. I am only saying that to read into the parable meaning that Jesus does not give is a not a safe approach to handling Scripture. I am saying that we are to be content with whatever Scripture gives us as to the meaning of the parable. Jesus does not interpret the details of this parable and therefore we should not.

12. Orlando, on July 14th, 2009 at 6:51 pm Said:

    Thanks Geoff for your review, many people in my church have read the book and I thought I was crazy because I was not seeing how Keller could arrive at his assumptions based on this parable . I agree with your review that the parable is really about repentance.

    .
    As I read the book and saw that Keller redefined the parable in such a way that I could not follow his assumptions. For example, he says that the younger son was into self discovery and the older son was a moralist. The younger son was just wanting to go have a good time and live it up in the world he was present value oriented, following the lust of the eyes, and the lust of the flesh. The younger son more resembles the gentiles of the day namely the tax collectors and sinners who were listening to Jesus.

    The father in this parable being like God the father let the younger son go as the younger son rejected the love of the father and the father released the son to fall into utter reprobation.

    The older son Keller conjectures was a moralist. No the older son better represents Israel as the Pharisees who also gathered to hear Jesus and those who represented faithful Israel always had God the father and the law. As the father in the parable does say to the angry older son, “My Son you are always with me and all that I have is yours”. (That was the promise to faithful Israel)

    Keller is wrong about conjecturing that the older son was sinning as the father would not have shown his compassion and absolute promise that all that the father had belonged to the older son and that the son was always with the father. This hardly fits the big assumption of an older brother who has broken fellowship with the father as a sinner.

    The father understands the older brother’s behavior as consistent with natural sibling rivalry. The older son saw some natural injustice and was upset. The father had to explain that the younger son was lost and dead and is now found and alive. Note it was the older son who was always with the father and possessor of all that the father had but it was the younger son who did not posses and was lost.

    Finally the son was lost in his reprobation in the pig pen of slop remembered the kindness and love of the father and was made alive by the fathers love. The father received the son in his pig slop filth and put a new robe on him forgiving him of his sin and granting him son status and rejoiced at the repentance of the younger (not the older).

    Thanks again Geoff for your review.

13. Luke, on July 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pm Said:

    Orlando, the context of the parable is given in Luke 15:1-2, which says, ‘Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”’ Therefore, it is not “conjecture” or “reading into the details” to see the older brother as representative of the Pharisees who clearly had a problem with all these terrible people being received so graciously by sinners.

    Keller’s point (based on Jesus’ point) is that God is eager to reach out to both sinful but moralistic Pharisee-types and sinful and prodigal (”recklessly extravagant”) tax-collector-types. Again, this is not reaching or a stretch. In fact, John MacArthur makes the exact same points in his book, A Tale of Two Sons. That’s because it is what the text is teaching.

    Also, I may have read your comment incorrectly, but were you saying that it is incorrect to interpret the older son’s reaction to his father as sinful?

14. Ray Rodriguez, on July 16th, 2009 at 6:11 pm Said:

    The Elder Son represents the members of the Old Covenant with Israel that does not understand that the age of Law is drawing to an end-That God Himself is now seeking sinners to be embraced by grace-through the death of His Son.

    The younger son represents members of the Old covenant who were turn off by their leaders handling of their religion. It is now oppresive and does not speaks about the heart condition of each person. The old wineskin can no longer handle the bursting of new testament wine-which Jesus is initiating. Though God is always merciful even in the Old Covenant-now he is more so because His Son have already died at the Cross. He is now waiting and will search out sinners to be brought to the Kingdom’s banquet.

15. Ray Rodriguez, on July 16th, 2009 at 7:03 pm Said:

    Having said that- to see covenant context-I felt it is not easy to find the immediate equivalence of said parable-since the covenantal situation is no longer repeatable.

    Jews are no longer member of the covenant just because they are jews. And a New Covenant member is always a believer- a sinner who have already went home and found by the Father through His Son.

    Tim Keller because of his Covenant theology background is not aware of it. To him-the Old and New is the same

16. Luke, on July 17th, 2009 at 5:21 am Said:

    Ray, that sounds like an absolute reading into the text. I don’t necessarily disagree that the parable could APPLY to Old Covenant people who don’t understand grace or Old Covenant people who were turned off by their leaders handling of religion. But what textual clues even remotely point to the idea that this is what Jesus had in mind when he was originally teaching the parable?

17. Ray Rodriguez, on July 19th, 2009 at 10:43 pm Said:

    Hi, Luke . I read some of your blogs and your church website. I also downloaded some of your recommendation regarding Tim Keller.

    I am not sure what you meant by “reading into” the Prodigal son’s parable?

18. Ray Rodriguez, on July 19th, 2009 at 10:58 pm Said:

    I deduce that the family being mentioned there are Jewish since the son went into “journey into a distant country” where later into the story- he was hired help in herding pigs. These are all indications that the younger son should not have done as a covenant member.

    Also, asking for his inheritance while the father is living-emphasized this as affront against his father-only makes sense under an Oriental/ Jewish context.

    Jesus wants all sinners within the nation of Israel to come back to the Father-since they are his children in the Old covenant sense. That is why the mission of Jesus and Paul initially was to the Jews first. It was only later that they approach the Gentiles.

    I am not against the traditional reading -which is between the “religious unbelievers” compared to “sinner unbeliever”. I am just wondering how the church was able to take it from that covenant context and apply it to the Gentile context. Maybe someone who knows sermons in the ancient church history will explain this to us. I guess the original scheme of interpretation goes this way:

    1. Religious Jew vs. Sinner Jew
    2. ?
    3. Jewish Believer vs. Gentile sinner
    4. Religious Gentile vs. sinner Gentile

    What do you think?

19. Luke, on July 20th, 2009 at 7:39 am Said:

    Hey Ray, I was just saying that I don’t see all of the New Covenant stuff as explicit in the text. I’m not sure I understand the question of the last post…The parable seems pretty straightforward to me: there are people who are obviously far from God (younger brothers) and those who are religious but are also far from God (elder brothers). Both of them are lost and far from God, and God seeks after both because he is the one who is truly prodigal (recklessly extravagant). That seems to be the most natural, obvious reading of the text and the point of Keller’s book (which is why I liked it).

    I’ll confess here that I’m not very familiar with NCT so not only does that make me an outsider on this blog (though I’ve felt very welcomed and loved), but it also makes some of the comments difficult for me to understand.

    Blessings, Luke

20. Michael Adams, on November 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm Said:

    Hey Geoff,
    A couple of thoughts I wanted to share…

    You said, “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.” You then said, “The parable of the prodigal son is all about God rejoicing over one sinner who repents.”

    Can you give us some specific examples from the book of how Keller missed the point of the parable if the point of the parable is as you’ve said, “God rejoicing over one sinner who repents”? How does what Keller said about the parable not support that point? Are you saying that when interpreting a parable, we are somehow taking away from its meaning if we look outside the parable itself and explore ways that the hearer in that culture and setting might hear and interpret what is being said? It looks as though you’re suggesting that when we expound a parable, that we don’t have the liberty to draw from these valuable resources.

    You also suggest that, “Unless Jesus interprets the details, as he does in two of the parables (sower and weeds) we cannot read into the details for we would only be guessing as what they might mean for us today.” I think that we would all agree that we need to stay alert to the possibilities of reading anything into Scripture that isn’t there, but I think that’s quite different than discussing or exploring the interpretive options available to us when reading a passage like this parable where detail is lacking. I think we have the liberty and freedom to do so as long as what we are suggesting as interpretive possibilities aren’t unbiblical ones. If we follow a strict “don’t interpret the details if Jesus didn’t do it” policy, then with the exception of the two parables that you mentioned, about all we would be able to do with any parable is read it and then move on with little or no comment or application because most of them lack detail.

    Jesus’ reason for speaking in parables in fulfillment of Isaiah 6:9-10 is an important and helpful interpretive key to keep in mind as we work through a parable, but is it intended to be the only thing that matters or can be said about a parable? I don’t think so. It answers the important question, “why did Jesus speak in parables?” but I don’t think it was intended to exhaust the “how” question of how to interpret them. I don’t think it was intended to tie our exegetical hands and keep us from exploring the parable further using other Scripture and the tools available to us such as historical background, culture, and audience, etc.

21. Geoff Volker, on November 5th, 2009 at 7:05 pm Said:

    Mike,
    Thanks for taking the time to respond to the blog. I will seek to respond to your concerns point by point.

    You are first asking for examples of Tim Keller that miss the point of the parable. I will give two examples. He spends much space in his book over the issue of two types of unbelievers. The parable is about rejoicing over someone who repents and believes. All three parables of Luke 15 (lost sheep, lost coin, lost son) say the same thing. There is a context to the parables and that is the complaint of the Pharisees over Jesus spending time with “sinners.” Jesus responds by giving the three parables to explain that he came to save sinners. The Pharisees did not see themselves as sinners. The parable of the lost son is saying the same thing as the other two parables. It is just a story, that the audience could identify with, to explain why he came to this earth.

    The second example would be the party that the father gave for the son who came home. Keller gives a fair amount of ink to this part of the story. To say that this part of the story has significance you would need some statement from Jesus, like he did for the parables of the sower and the weeds. What we want to avoid, though well intentioned, is to guess at what something means. We need to have God interpret his own word. If he does not interpret the details then the main point is what we are to take away from the parable. Keller, who is well intentioned, is falling into the trap of guessing what God had in mind when he gave this parable.

    You mentioned that if we follow this strict method then we would only be able to read the parable and then move on. That is not true. When I read Luke 15 and all three parables I come away with the truth of God’s delight in the saving of a person. I can then go to many other Scriptures to understand in a full way what is involved in the saving of a person. But, in doing it this way I have resisted the temptation to guess and therefore I have not misrepresented God as to what he is seeking to teach from that section of Scripture.

    This is my concern, that we avoid the mistake at guessing as to what something means in Scripture. In order to know what something means I must be able to show that God is interpreting his own word, or to put it in other words, let Scripture interpret itself.

    Your final concern had to do with the purpose of parables. Once again I can only say what Scripture says. The use of the parable was to keep Israel from believing, as it says it Isaiah 6, and to tell us something about the kingdom, as it says in Matthew 13. My appeal is that we be content with how God wants us to use this particular portion of Scripture. I do not deny the relevance of the cultural setting, but the setting is relevant so that the hearers could relate to it. The message of the parable is whatever God says it is.

    Once again thanks for your imput and giving me a chance to clarify some of my thoughts.

22. Michael Adams, on November 10th, 2009 at 12:59 pm Said:

    Geoff… thanks for taking the time to respond and for the clarification. I appreciate it.

23. Shawn Stewart, on November 11th, 2009 at 10:15 pm Said:

    I’ve not yet read Keller’s Prodigal God book, but I understand that he pulls a great deal from Dr. Kenneth Bailey. Dr. Bailey is a Presbyterian minister from Pennsylvania, he spent most of his life in the middle east and has written several books that shed a great deal of light on the historical cultural implications of Jesus’ teachings and parables. He has written couple of books that deal directly with the “prodigal” parable.

    I finished reading another book by Dr. Bailey this year that has added a great deal of extra nuance and depth to my understanding of what the original hearers would have gleaned from Jesus’ stories—that book is called “Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes”.

    Having many middle eastern friends and spending a short time in the middle east myself, I can say Dr. Bailey’s work would be a real interest to all that have posted here. You can find Dr. Bailey discussing the prodigal son story at this website. I would highly recommend it: http://www.eprodigals.com/The-Prodigal-Son-About-Us/The-Prodigal-Son-Videos.html

24. Marcus, on January 17th, 2010 at 3:21 am Said:

    Hello, Geoff. I apologize for posting this comment so late.

    I have read The Prodigal God and I don’t believe the concepts are anything new. I think they are very eloquently and simply presented through a possibly (but not necessarily) new interpretation of a well known parable.

    My question is this:
    If the interpretation that Keller uses is meant to draw people toward the heart of God and if it succeeds in that goal and does not contradict the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor commit any heresy, does it then matter if the interpretation does not fit perfectly into historical context? Is it truly beneficial to argue historical context while missing the message that Keller has endeavored to convey, if in fact, that message does not contradict the rest of Scripture?

25. Geoff Volker, on January 17th, 2010 at 4:58 am Said:

    Marcus,
    Your comments are never too late. Thanks for taking the time to comment. Tim Keller’s handling of the parable expressed some very biblical ideas. My take on it was that he mishandled the parable and sought to get from the parable something that it never intended to give. My critique was over the issue of hermeneutics. Keller is a good guy who said some good things, but he incorrectly attributed them to the parable of the prodigal son. Geoff

26. Marcus, on January 18th, 2010 at 2:16 am Said:

    Hello, Geoff. Forgive my brashness but I’ll rephrase the question and ask it again, as I don’t believe it was directly addressed:

    If the interpretation that Keller uses is meant to draw people toward the heart of God and if it succeeds in that goal and does not contradict the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor commit any heresy, does it then matter if you do not completely agree with his hermeneutics? Is it truly beneficial to argue hermeneutics while missing the message that Keller has endeavored to convey, if in fact, that message does not contradict the rest of Scripture?

    Since you said, “I cannot recommend the book,” I must assume you believe Keller, in this book, commits some heresy or hinders the Gospel of Jesus Christ in some way. It is something different entirely to disagree with Keller hermeneutically but to warn others to not read this book, you must see some great harm or deception in it.
    Furthermore, I don’t understand how in your review you can say “I cannot recommend the book,” and in your reply to me say, “Tim Keller’s handling of the parable expressed some very biblical ideas.” How can you, a Christian I assume, warn others not to read a book that you admit is biblical? Would it not have been more reasonable to list your review of the book as a disclaimer and continue addressing the true message of the book or do you disagree with the message itself? If you do disagree with the message, I would honestly be interested in hearing the basis if your disagreement. If you don’t disagree with the message, I question the motives of your review.

    I don’t have a strong opinion on the book other than my belief that it points to Jesus Christ as the only Savior, it is not contentious toward other Christians, it fits with the overall message of the Bible and it is not meant to deceive

    As the Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians Chapter 3:

    For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere men?
    What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. The man who plants and the man who waters have one purpose, and each will be rewarded according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
    By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

27. Geoff Volker, on January 18th, 2010 at 6:24 am Said:

    Marcus,
    Kellers content is not heresy. One can misuse Scripture and still say some worthwhile things. It is a matter of hermeneutics, that is correctly handling Scripture. I cannot recommend the book since the parable of the prodigal son was mishandled. Good guys mishandle Scripture. I have done it myself. Good intentions do not remove from us the responsibility to accurately represent what our God is saying in his word. Thanks again for taking the time to interact with my blog. Bye for now, Geoff

28. Marcus, on January 18th, 2010 at 8:30 am Said:

    Hello again, Geoff. I must apologize for being so overzealous. It was disrespectful of me to post such harsh comments without first reading and understanding your doctrine. Although I still disagree with you, I realize I was wrong in my actions and I was not gracious toward you. Thank you for your patience and grace.

    Love in Christ,

    Marcus

29. Geoff Volker, on January 18th, 2010 at 8:37 am Said:

    Marcus, thank you for your response. Please feel free to comment on any of the blogs. In Him, Geoff

30. Paul Clark, on January 19th, 2010 at 1:02 am Said:

    Hi All,

    Haven’t read the book but am interested by the discussion. The distinction I see in the parable is that both sons saw themselves as Servants – the amazing thing is – God wanted to treat them as Sons.

    The first son goes off and does everything bad – others have pointed out in other places that what he shows is not really repentance at all. He comes to his senses. He realises that back with the father he can get a better deal and not be hungry. It is a calculated decision by him to survive – he rehearses his speech. Perhaps it it a halfway repentance – he’s trying to ’save himself’. He comes home to be a Servant, in the hope of being ’saved’ from starvation. But the saving act was the Father’s amazing act of grace to reinstate him as a Son.

    The mistake of the older son was that although he was a son, he acted and thought of himself as a servant. ‘Didn’t you know everything I had was yours??’ In the OT covenant, or in the church, some walk away and become ’sinners’. God’s grace is always available to them and is what saves.
    In the OT covenant or in the church, some grow up with very distorted views of God that see them as servants who work to earn their faith – thus they become very jealous/defensive at the sight of grace. They too need to discover the grace of God that would accept them as sons, for no other reason than, that is what the Father is like.

    Indeed the older son on the end of the last of the three parables is the very rub directed at the Pharisees. Jesus, three times expresses God extravagant love for the lost – then, lastly, pointedly, he has a word for them – ‘you also have not understood the radical nature of God’s grace. You need to become sons, not the legalists you are.’

    Not sure if it’s relevant but for the Keller discussion, but about ‘are these about believers, unbelievers, etc.

31. Geoff Volker, on January 21st, 2010 at 11:21 am Said:

    Paul, you have said some very good things, but I do think that the parable is not really discussing those issues. The parable is making the point that God rejoices in those who are saved and that is why Jesus came, to seek and save those that are lost. We need to be careful that we do not read into a parable something that it was very intended to give. Thanks for taking the time to comment on the blog. Geoff

32. Paul Clark, on January 21st, 2010 at 2:08 pm Said:

    Hi Geoff,

    Yes, I agree, that is perhaps the main aim of all three of the parables in the context of the meal – I’m just not sure that is all Jesus intended to say. I appreciate your reluctance to speculate about the details of any parable – I too think that is to go over board and have seen parables killed through the death of a thousand cuts in interpreting word by word. They are like riddles with one point. I suppose I see the whole chapter as a bigger parable, that says more than just one parable. Three times Jesus makes the point that he’s come for the lost – then the final bit about the older son, making another point, that get’s to the very heart/context of the discussion with those of verse 1-3. It is the ironic ‘the sick don’t need a doctor’ in a different form. I also think Jesus’ own example of interpreting the Sower show that some of the main details [rock, weed, path] do indeed mean something. Whether my or anyone else’s interpretation hits the nail on the head would be up to the hearer to judge, and Scripture itself. Is an interpretation congruent with all Scripture. “I no longer call your servants…” “That we may be called the sons of God” but also “we have only done our Master’s duty.”

    Appreciate the stimulation.

33. Geoff Volker, on January 22nd, 2010 at 9:30 am Said:

    Paul, I do agree with the whole context of the opening scene and all three parables are all tied together. They all say the same thing. Your reference to the parable of the sower points out that in that parable Jesus interpreted the details and therefore they have meaning. But, if Jesus does not interpret the details then we only take the main point. Bye for now, Geoff

34. Paul Clark, on January 22nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm Said:

    Hi Geoff,

    That seems like strange logic. Can you explain how you’ve come to that conclusion? If Jesus gives us an example to follow, shouldn’t we follow it? Jesus gives us an example of how to cautiously and appropriately interpret the details of parables. But since Jesus doesn’t explain the details in this case we shouldn’t? Wouldn’t the same logic say, if Jesus doesn’t make explicit the main point we can’t? Again, I think this is not a free for all – but, like any interpretation of Scripture, one done with the wisdom of many to guide and scripture itself to be the check if what we’re doing is legitimate.

    Thanks Geoff.

35. Geoff Volker, on January 22nd, 2010 at 3:11 pm Said:

    Paul,
    When Jesus interprets the details of a parable we have God interpreting his word. When we try to interpret the details of a parable that Jesus did not interpret the details we are only guessing as to what they mean. We need God to interpret his own word. If he wanted us to know the significance of the details then he would have given us a way to confirm from Scripture their meaning. God must be the interpreter of his own word and we have to avoid the temptation to guess. Bye for now, Geoff

36. Paul Clark, on January 22nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm Said:

    Hi Geoff,

    Yes, I’ll admit, often interpretations are guesses. But hasn’t God given us that way to confirm our interpretations with [John 14:26] the Holy Spirit who will teach and remind us of all thing, lead us into the truth? I would also suggest consistency with Scripture, and the wisdom of many [Pr 15:22].

    It seems to me you are speaking about degrees here. All proclamation, teaching of scripture, involves a certain level of interpretation. To suggest otherwise is to not understand hermeneutics at all. It is then all about what you can give a logical, consistent sustain argument for with Scripture and reason as your tools, and the receivers/peers/church as your evaluators.

    Aren’t we arguing about degrees here with you choosing a much higher standard than others, ie Rev Keller? I haven’t read the book – so can’t comment myself. Yes we shouldn’t take Keller’s words as ‘gospel’. Keller can suggest an ‘interpretation’ and it is for us to evaluate and decide, guided by the HS, Scripture and wisdom of others. To write off a book because you, in good conscience, can’t go all the way with him is a little extreme?? [I was reluctant to use that last word, it's a bit extreme!]

    Or is it because too many people are too gullible and dumb, and don’t do this self evaluation as they read, but assume anything written by a ’star’ of the faith is correct?? Maybe that is the real problem, getting people to ‘think’ as they read anything.

    Your blog is a good place to ensure people think through what Keller [et. al.] writes and not swallow just anything. I suppose I disagree with the high level of ‘proof’ you put on any interpretation, that limits what the Bible can say – taken to it’s logical conclusion. ie – can the bible say anything about genetic engineering? How do you deal with an issue like this?

    Thanks Geoff – written in a Spirit of mutual respect and a desire to learn and grow – I hope that comes across.

    From Down UNder!

37. Geoff Volker, on January 22nd, 2010 at 5:40 pm Said:

    Paul, when we teach Scripture we want to correctly represent our God. We do not want to guess when we teach. Tim Keller is a good guy but his book, though it says some good things, does not handle the parable of the prodigal son properly and therefore I cannot recommend the book to someone who wants to know how to interpret that parable. Bye for now, Geoff

38. Kimberly, on January 27th, 2010 at 10:29 am Said:

    Geoff, yesterday I began attending a group study of The Prodigal God at my church. It was session one of a six week study. After watching the 38 minute DVD during which Tim Keller made his introductions and presented the main ideas of his book, I felt profoundly disturbed. I thought that he did pull points out of the parable that were not intended to be made. I was initially disappointed that I had committed to 5 more weeks of examining his book. However, after reading your review of The Prodigal God and the resulting comments from thoughtful others, I have changed my attitude. I now regard this as an opportunity to reexamine my own methods of handling Scripture–perhaps something we should all do from time to time.

39. Dean, on February 6th, 2010 at 3:01 pm Said:

    Hello Geoff,

    I finished this book with my wife a couple of weeks ago. We purchased the book as it was used for a bible study. Having pre-read the book before the study began, I immediately became heart-sunken with the study as I could not support, under the guise of surreptitious allegory, a diminshed view of Christ’s efficacious work on the cross.

    I was very disappointed that Tim Keller, in order to promote his “elder brother” allegory, had to redefine sin: “The elder brother is not losing the father’s love in spite of his goodness, but because of it. It is NOT HIS SINS that create THE barrier between him and his father, IT’S the PRIDE……..;IT’S NOT HIS WRONGDOING but his righteousness that is keeping him from sharing in the feast of the father.” (pg 35).

    The father in Keller’s allegory is God. Yet he states very clearly that “It’s NOT his (elder brother) sins that create THE barrier between him and his father(God).” Mr. Keller, are you kidding me? What then is causing the barrier? Pride and righteousness (more specifically self-righteousness) are no longer sins that keep us from God? Since when? The whole world is cursed from the fall of man in the garden becauase of pride and self-righteousness, wanting to be thier own god and rejecting the true God. It was sin that the Law was given to expose so that man would understand that he was by nature a sinner and unable to save himself from the curse of his SIN, death – total and eternal separation from God. The Law and prophets were fulfilled in Christ, the perfect and final sacrifice for our SIN, who became SIN, though he never himself sinned, on our behalf that if we would believe in his life, death, and resurrection (his atoning work for the children of God) having confessed our SINS we would be given eternal life – total and eternal fellowship with God. How can we then say that pride and self-righteousness, nothing less than idolatry, are no longer sins that keep us from the father? This is not what the Bible teaches, yet Keller calls this new discovery, “… Jesus’s deeper definition of sin …” (pg 49).

    Keller states on page 78, while answering the question of what we must do to be saved, “We must learn how to repent of the sin UNDER all our other sins AND under all our righteousness – the sin of seeking to be our own Savior and Lord.” Mr. Keller deserves credit here for this statement, however, it falls far short of retracting and therefore repairing the damage done in teaching that “… Jesus’s deeper definition of sin…” is that this pride and self-righteousness, while it may be sin, is not sin that will create a barrier between us and God, even though he says we must repent of it (and we must as it is sin that creats a barrier between us and God) in order to be restored to God. Confusing at best.

    Having read and listened to Mr. Keller previously, I believe that he understands that pride and self-righteouseness are sins, are idolatry, and do in fact create a barrier between man and God. However, I also believe that in order to stretch this parable in to such allegorical lengths Mr. Keller, perhaps unwittingly, convoluted the clear meaning of the text and compromised the teaching of the effacacious work of Christ on the cross, bridging the gap between man and God through His atonement, yes, even for pride and self-righteouseness.

    The “elder brother” and “younger brother” are in no way mutually exclusive. After all, if we are sinners by nature through our federal head, Adam, who sinned by wanting to be God, then we are all by nature “elder brothers” … and we are likewise all by nature “younger brothers”. That is to say, all human beings are children of wrath and in need of the Savior and the heavens rejoice when a child hears the call of his Father.

    Soli Deo Gloria

Leave a Reply