I was asked to do more "parable challenges," so here's one. In Luke 19:14-27 Jesus talks about a nobleman who went on a journey to "receive a kingdom." That's a bit of a conundrum itself, but I'll put it aside for now. He brings his three servants, gives them different amounts of money, and says, "Take care of that while I'm gone." He leaves.

The part that's bothering me right now: the next verse says, "but the people hated him and said, "we don't want this guy ruling over us."" That thought is immediately put aside and ignored. We go through the three guys and what they did with the money, two smart guys and one stupid guy who apparently doesn't even know what a bank is. Most of us know the story.

Then the ruler says, "Oh, and those people who didn't want me to rule over them? Bring them in here and carve them up into itty bitty pieces." Suddenly that thought came back.

My first question of many about this story: what does this stuff have to do with the idea behind the story of the pounds? For the life of me, I can't see it. It almost seems like somehow part of another story got shoehorned into this one, but I can't imagine any scribal scenario where that could happen. So what's it doing there?

Would it be possible that the one parable has two points?

1. The importance that God places on the faithful use of assets.
2. The great, underlying sin of mankind in rejecting, and even despising, the authority of God and the subsequent judgement of God for that rejection.

But didn't Jesus generally use separate parables to make separate points? And the one seems unrelated to the other. That's where I'm having difficulty.

Would looking at the story as an allegory help solve the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Would looking at the story as an allegory help solve the problem?

---

Isn't that similar to a parable?

I found this explanation of this parable in Luke 19 that mostly makes sense:

https://www.theologyofwork.org/new-t...s-luke-1911-27

Quote:

---

Isn't that similar to a parable?

---

It is similar but not the same. As I understand it, analogies tend to have multiple characters and can have multiple meanings, such as Pilgrim's Progress. Sound reasonable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It is similar but not the same. As I understand it, analogies tend to have multiple characters and can have multiple meanings, such as Pilgrim's Progress. Sound reasonable?

---

An analogy is not the same as an allegory.

from literarydevices.net

parable -- Parables teach a certain moral lesson.

allegory -- Allegory is a figure of speech in which abstract ideas and principles are described in terms of characters, figures, and events. It can be employed in prose and poetry to tell a story, with a purpose of teaching or explaining an idea or a principle. The objective of its use is to teach some kind of a moral lesson.

analogy -- An analogy is a comparison in which an idea or a thing is compared to another thing that is quite different from it. It aims at explaining that idea or thing by comparing it to something that is familiar. Metaphors and similes are tools used to draw an analogy. Therefore, analogy is more extensive and elaborate than either a simile or a metaphor. E.g., The structure of an atom is like a solar system. The nucleus is the sun, and electrons are the planets revolving around their sun.

You are exactly correct. I got the two words confused. "Allegory" was what I should have said. Thanks for the correction.

"parable -- Parables teach a certain moral lesson."

Exactly. This is why I can't see it as an allegory, because, as my professor used to say, "Parables teach one main point." He would write a giant P on the board and use it for both "Parables" and "Point."

The point of this one is clearly about the pounds and what the various servants did with them. I don't see how the other part serves that point, hence my dilemma.

Maybe that last verse refers back to the first one --

14. But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.'

27. But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence.”

The members of the delegation (the rich man's enemies) who hated him were to be killed now that he was in charge, was the king
-----------
The People's New Testament says --

These enemies of mine: This portrays the fate, not of church members, but of those who would not have the Lord reign over them. It embraces all the impenitent. Compare Matthew 13:49; Matthew 21:44; Matthew 25:30; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-10.
-----------

Abbott's Illustrated New Testament says --

The general idea of the parable is, that Jesus was not then about to establish his kingdom, as they had supposed, (Luke 19:11.) He was going to leave the world for a time, to reappear again, at a future day, fully invested with power. In the mean time, he was to leave in the hands of his friends and followers the revelations of divine truth which he had made, as a private trust, for the faithful exercise of which they would be called to a strict account, when he should come again in power. A parable somewhat similar to this in form, but yet very different in its intent and import, was given by our Savior on another occasion, as recorded Matthew 25:14-30.

https://www.studylight.org/commentary/luke/19-27.html

It definitely hearkens back to that previous statement. I just don't see how that wraparound story relates to the main one.

Perhaps it's only a problem if we restrict parables to one meaning only. Granted, that's the usual approach, but I don't know why it HAS to be done that way on every occasion.