Book Club Questions for The Prodigal God

1.Keller opens by noting the original audience for this parable: tax collectors and sinners on one side, Pharisees and scribes on the other. Why does that original audience matter for how we interpret the story? Who in your own life or context maps onto those two groups?

2.Read Luke 15:1–32 aloud before your group discussion. What details stand out to you that you may have glossed over in previous readings of this parable?

3.Keller argues that the conventional title — 'the parable of the prodigal son' — has caused readers to focus almost entirely on the younger brother. Do you think that is fair? How have you personally tended to hear or apply this parable in the past?

1.Keller points out that in Jesus' culture, a son asking for his inheritance before his father's death was essentially saying, 'I wish you were dead.' How does understanding that cultural context change the emotional weight of the opening scene?

2.The younger son 'came to himself' (Luke 15:17) in the pigpen. Keller describes this as a moment of moral and spiritual awakening. What do you think the younger son actually understood in that moment, and what did he still not understand?

3.Keller argues that the older brother's anger at the father's celebration reveals that he, too, has a deeply distorted relationship with his father. What specifically does the older brother's speech in Luke 15:29–30 expose about his heart?

1.Keller draws a sharp distinction between 'moralism' and 'gospel.' In his framing, a moralist obeys God in order to earn something — safety, blessing, a sense of superiority. How is that different from the obedience of someone who has been transformed by grace?

2.Keller argues that elder brothers can be just as self-centered as younger brothers — they simply use religion and morality as their currency rather than sensual pleasure or financial wealth. Does that ring true to you? Can you think of examples — from the book, from history, or from your own experience?

3.Keller describes several marks of the 'elder brother spirit': a sense of superiority, a feeling that God owes you for your good behavior, anger when irreligious people seem to prosper, and a joylessness about spiritual life. Which of these marks, if any, do you recognize in yourself?

1.Keller redefines sin not primarily as breaking rules but as making something other than God the center of your life — your source of identity, meaning, and security. How does that definition expand your understanding of what sin is?

2.Keller argues that both brothers sinned in the same fundamental way: they related to the father's goods rather than to the father himself. The younger brother wanted the father's wealth without the father; the elder brother wanted the father's approval without genuinely loving the father. Do you find this a convincing reading of the parable? Why or why not?

3.Keller suggests that irreligion and religion are actually two different strategies for the same underlying sin — self-salvation, or running your own life on your own terms. How does that reframe the difference between a 'sinner' and a 'good person'?

1.Keller argues that there are two ways to be lost: you can be lost by running away from home (the younger brother) or you can be lost while appearing to be home (the elder brother). Which form of lostness do you think is harder to recognize and why?

2.Keller describes 'younger brother lostness' as obvious and visible — moral failure, broken relationships, consequences that are impossible to ignore. In what ways does this kind of lostness actually create an advantage in coming to God?

3.Keller describes 'elder brother lostness' as hidden — you can be inside the church, performing religious duties, and still be fundamentally alienated from the father's heart. What are the warning signs of this kind of lostness that Keller identifies?

1.Keller argues that Jesus is telling this parable as someone who knows he is going to become its solution. He is the true elder brother — the one who leaves the father's house not in anger but in love, to bring home the lost. How does that reading transform the parable for you?

2.Keller points out that the father's lavish welcome of the younger son — the robe, the ring, the feast — is not cheap sentimentality but is costly, because it absorbs the shame and scandal that the younger son's return would have caused in the village. How does that insight connect to what Christ did on the cross?

3.Keller argues that the elder brother in the parable refuses to go in to the party, but Jesus — the true elder brother — goes out into the far country and pays the ultimate cost to bring us home. What does this contrast reveal about the difference between religion and the gospel?

1.Keller argues that the parable ends not with a courtroom verdict but with a party — a feast, music, dancing, and celebration. What does it say about the nature of salvation that Jesus pictures it this way rather than as mere forgiveness of a legal debt?

2.Keller connects the feast in the parable to the biblical vision of the great banquet at the end of history — the restoration of all things. How does that eschatological horizon change the way you think about life now? About suffering, injustice, or loss?

3.Keller says the gospel produces a distinctive kind of hope — not optimism (things will probably work out) and not mere stoicism (things may not work out, but I'll manage) but a hope grounded in the character and promises of God. What is the practical difference between those three postures in the face of hardship?

1.Before you started this book, how did you understand the parable of the prodigal son? How has Keller's reading changed or deepened that understanding?

2.Which chapter or idea from The Prodigal God was most personally impactful for you? What made it land so hard?

3.Keller's central argument is that there are two ways to be lost — the younger-brother way and the elder-brother way — and that Jesus came for both. How has that framework changed the way you see yourself? The way you see others?