Interview With Tim Keller on The Prodigal God

I don't know that the title is all that creative. The reason it makes us think for a moment is that so many use the word 'prodigal' to mean 'wayward' when actually the word means to spend extravagantly. In the end, the father (who represents God) outspends his prodigal younger son, in order to bring him home.

That isn't exactly accurate. While the word prodigal does mean "to spend extravagantly", it also carries the modifier of "spending recklessly or wastefully." And not only wasteful extravagance but a wanton immorality. Exegetically, the Greek word for prodigal means: dissolute and conveys the idea of an utterly debauched lifestyle.

Thus it is a fitting description of the younger son who wasted his life by extravagant and lascivious spending; but not of God. Nowhere does Scripture represent God as being "prodigal" by asset or liability of definition.

I find that Keller does this repeatedly. He derives not his meaning from the text of Scripture, but from a modern cultural subtext that he tries to fold back into the meaning of the text. IOW, he fails to define his terms biblically and it makes him less effective.

While I liked much of Keller's sermon itself, the leap to this title is a grand canyon jump. In fact, I have read a few Roman Catholic authors who have referred to Jesus as the "prodigal of heaven" with the same kind of logic. But this is a blasphemous inference taken at face value.

Sometimes in our desire to be clever or unique, we unwittingly depict God in a manner that He has not chosen to depict Himself throughout the Scriptures. He is Redeemer; Savior; Lord; Rock; Refuge; Shepherd; etc. - but one thing He is not... He is not prodigal.

Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5

Thanks Alex! I was interested in this book when I saw it over on Justin's blog -- now I'm amped! ;-)

Steve's analysis of the term prodigal is incorrect. He assumes you have to mean all possible definitions to use any one. For instance, prodigal has 4 uses according to its entry in Random House. Uses 1 and 4 would not fit God, but uses 2 and 3 definitely would.

I really don't understand how this could possibly be a real issue.

Brendt
Because words mean something. More than that, when speaking about the nature and character of God, it is not Random House, nor Webster, or any other source that really matters, but what God has said in His Scriptures about Himself.

The Scriptures are silent when using this word or any derivative of it. Prodigal carries with it the weight of reckless, riotous, foolish living; a spent life of wantonness or debauchery. Whatever that word has morphed to mean in a positive sense throughout history, I think you would have to admit is rare indeed and not common to the vast majority of the hoi polloi.

Could you imagine writing a book on The Pleasure of God, but to just spice things up a bit you decided to call it, "The Gay God." You could apply "gay" in a positive sense for pleasure according to some dictionaries - but it would still be an offense to God and an unnecessary distraction.

The Prodigal God is a clever title designed to get people talking (mission accomplished). But it is not accurate at all when speaking of the nature or character of God especially in the context of Luke 15 on the prodigal son.

If you notice, Keller was even apologetic on the publishers choice of words in the subtitle. Too bad that same level of discernment wasn't applied to the title itself.

BTW, I went to a Starbucks today and asked several people (most nonbelievers as I was told later) about their response to this title. They without an exception thought it was disrespectful and done for pragmatic, clever reasons than for clarity. Also, everyone thought the word prodigal was only negative and never even mentioned nor were aware of it carrying a positive emphasis that would widely be even known or accepted. Just food for thought.

Join the conversation...

Hi Steve,

With all due respect, you're patently wrong.

You said, "Exegetically, the Greek word for prodigal means: dissolute and conveys the idea of an utterly debauched lifestyle."

Exegetically, prodigal isn't a Greek word. It isn't derived from a Greek word and isn't translated from a Greek word.

"Prodigal" is a Latin word. It apparently got it's connection with Luke 15 from the Vulgate (so says http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prodigal), but, having checked the text of the Vulgate, it's not even there. It must have been a section heading or something.

The "exegetical" definition you supplied came from page 80 of "Relationship: Building Bridges," a book which isn't about Greek nor the text of Luke 15, and which, not surprisingly, has no footnote or citation for this definition of what a non-Greek, non-Biblical word "means in Greek."

This makes your assertion that Keller "fails to define his terms biblically and it makes him less effective" seem a little ironic.

Chris

Chris
You are mistaken on most accounts. See the comment thread of my blog for further discussion.

Thanks,
Steve

BTW, it is in the Vulgate. Read carefully again Luke 15:13 "...filius peregre..." It means "son wanderer" or prodigal son.

The Scriptures are silent when using this word or any derivative of it. Prodigal carries with it the weight of reckless, riotous, foolish living; a spent life of wantonness or debauchery. Whatever that word has morphed to mean in a positive sense throughout history, I think you would have to admit is rare indeed and not common to the vast majority of the hoi polloi.

That is irrelevant. The fact remains that the English term "prodigal" can mean spending lavishly. And there is no rule against using obscure definitions of words--even in book titles about God. Controversy over. The fact that you would still insist upon making this an issue defies explanation.

Good point, Agnes.

Was it wrong of Jesus to compare himself to a thief and his Father to a corrupt judge?

Bart,

There is a big difference between comparing, which is to examine two or more objects, ideas, people,etc.
In order to note similarities or differences. Like you mentioned if it wrong for Jesus to compare Himself to a thief and God His Father to an unjust judge? Well we who read the bible knows that both the Father and the Son is neither a thief or an unjust judge, if we say different then we are guilty of blasphemy. But for example when Jesus was comparing the Father with the unjust judge in Luke 18:5-7, He stated that as the persistant widow kept coming to the judge to avenge her of her adversary, even though he did not fear God and had any regard for men,(which is not God, just read 1 John 1:5) just to get the widow off his back,(even though he had bad motives) he avenged her of her adversary, so likewise God the Father when the elect persist in their prayers towards Him, He will avenge them of their adversaries. Because He is a judge (Psalm 82:1; Hebrews 12:23). But in describing the Prodigal son there is nothing to compare God to, and God is definitly not a Prodigal, to state that is being blasphemous.
Tim Keller though is a Seeker-Sensitive pastor, whose church is on the Willow Creek association list. Willow Creek of course is by Bill Hybels who compromised the gospel of Jesus Christ a long time ago and sadly his approach is embraced by many in churches today and Mr. Keller is one of them, which is to amuse the goats, while the sheep gets neglected.

Alex, God is like a prodigal in one respect: he is extravagantly generous in a way the world finds foolish.

Bart,

Are you going to believe what the bible says, or are you going to lean on your own understanding, which is foolish, come on lets think biblical here, the idea of "Prodigal" according to the Parable that Jesus is communicating, He is not talking about one who gives abundantly, (which is one of the definitions in the dictionary), but one who is recklessly and wastefully extravagant. Look at Luke 15:13. The word "Wasted" in the greek is "diaskorpizo" which means to waste, to squander. The fact is according to the context of Luke 15:12-17, the younger son wasted all he had on his worldly pleasures,and suffered for it. So to put God in that catagory is again blasphemous. We must not add to His word (Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18).

Alex, if your argument hits Jesus, it's invalid. I could show you that all the dictionary definitions for "thief", Greek and English, are negative. I could show you many Bible texts condemning thieves. Yet Jesus compares himself to one. Is he blaspheming?

Bart,

Scriptures states:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
and they will turn their ears away from the TRUTH, and be turned aside to FABLES.- 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

Also:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to DECEIVING SPIRITS and DOCTRINE OF DEMONS- 1 Timothy 4:1.

Bart, let me ask you a question Are you a christian? Or if you are a christian I see signs of biblical illiteracy. Like I told you before there is a difference with comparing and saying that a person is something, and thats what Mr. Keller states on the cover of his book that God is a "Prodigal" and he try to insert a dictionary definition of what the word means when the context of the Luke 15 passage does not mean that at all! Whether if its in ignorance or its done on purpose to try and sell books its totally unacceptable. Mr. Keller needs to repent of this blasphemy and whoever, including you Bart of this heresy, or God's judgment will be upon you all! That is the problem with these Seeker-Sensitive churches they try to dilute the truth of God's word to amuse the goats who sit in their church meeting unregenerated on they way to hell, why these false teachers entertain them, while the church members are living ungodly lives, men not taking charge of their households, women not submitting to their husbands and dressing immodestly and dressing their children the same, pimping them, to strangers. Sexual immorality is rapant in those churches, probably your church too, I will not be suprised, why? Because of this kind of false teaching. This is my final response to you Bart repent and come back to the scriptures, and listen to God communicate to you and not your own deceitful and wicked heart (Jer 17:9). That is the problem with most of American christianity today they want to redefine christianity to something that is not truth at all, this is the kind of nonsense being preached in the name of Christ! Oh Lord help us all!

My question to you is Jesus a "Thief"? You keep coming back to that, show me the passages, I'm pretty sure it does not defend your position you are taking, because of your lack of fearing God.

Good comments, Steve. I have a slightly different take on this I've posted at Baylyblog.com.

Piper and Yancey have used words in similar ways in their writing...

I did some looking into the Latin of Luke 15:3 in the Vulgate. The Notre Dame online Latin dictionary defines 'peregrinus' as "wanderer, foreigner, stranger / pilgrim, crusader". Is that an accurate or desirable description/modifier for almighty God? I don't think so. TE Keller fares worse in the original Greek as Alex showed above. Who cares if Keller can find a clever English definition after he's called on it? The context of the passage is plain for all to see, and his obscure English definition is never used in the Bible.

Besides, TE Keller is using the English word deliberately referencing the parable in Luke, but now saying that his definition is different than the usage there, and the usage that 99.99999% of readers of his book title will immediately seize upon. That makes no sense, especially for an ordained teaching elder.

When do we get to the point where prominent elders can humbly admit that they erred rather than conduct after-the-fact damage control spinning?

Bob

I read Keller's book and listened to his sermons. Very accurate and he doesn't contradict key biblical doctrines....lighten up steve

My immediate reaction to the title was to think that from the elder brother's perspective, the Father was being 'prodigal' and wasteful of his 'spending' 'attention' 'giving inheritance to' the younger brother who clearly didn't deserve it. The whole point is that because the elder brother felt that he merited his inheritance would make the Father's behaviour seem 'prodigal' using a large part of the meaning of that word. Couldn't it be argued that God's grace is 'prodigal' in the sense of it being wasteful spending on that which is undeserved? Unless one feels it is deserved of course.

In all the debate about the suitability of applying the term prodigal to God, the focus has been on Latin and Greek. No-one has thought to consult any middle eastern language. To do so is beyond me and perhaps of most of those who have contributed to this thread. However, Kenneth Bailey has helpfully attempted this in his book 'Jacob and the Prodigal'. Of course the word prodigal does not occur in English translations but is an invention of preachers to catch the sense of the parable. One may argue about their success. The idea of prodigality in the parable comes from the clause 'there he squandered his wealth in wild living' (NIV).
Apparently in the Greek it is unclear whether immorality was involved (see Hultgren). We do not have the aramaic in which the parable was originally given, but Bailey finds it noteworthy that in Syriac and Arabic translations all implication that that there was immorality was involved is avoided.
The thrust was 'expensive living'.
The question then becomes whether one can apply prodigal to God. But of course the use of it applied to the son or the father or God is not found in the Bible; it is a preacher's whimsy. The question becomes does the application of the word prodigal to the son or to the father help us understand the message of the parable.
Certainly if one wishes to emphasise the free liberality of God in saving us, some might find the use of the word prodigal to God helpful. For others, the suggestion of foolishness applied to God might offend most unhelpfully. Perhaps the answer to the question is best left to the audiences who read the book.