I first encountered this in a Sunday School class at the dispensational church I mentioned in my previous e-mail. The fellow leading the discussion read Luke 19:11 and said “See? That proves that the premillennial position is right! The verse is telling us that the Kingdom has been postponed! The amills are making the same mistake the Lord’s disciples made when they assumed that the Lord’s kingdom was coming soon!”
(I later discovered that this completely maniacal way of reading Luke 19:11 is in many of the standard books “proving” dispensationalism.)
***
In that particular Sunday School session, I politely stopped the teacher and said “Wait a minute. Just because the Lord was not intending to go on at that time to accomplish His Own death and resurrection doesn’t mean that the premills are correct about their larger Kingdom Postponement theory.”
I told them that I thought that they had stepped into a trap of the sort which Christians should easily avoid. I told them that we needed to go on and look more closely at the parable which the Lord gave His disciples to straighten out their confusion.
I pointed out that in v.12, the Lord said “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.”
I pointed out that this idea of receiving a kingdom in a far country actually fits the amillennial interpretation. According to Acts 2, the Lord was enthroned--i.e., RECEIVED FOR HIMSELF A KINGDOM--in HEAVEN. That fits the “far country” idea inasmuch as HEAVEN is a FAR COUNTRY from which He is scheduled to RETURN.
(Furthermore, there is no hint whatsoever of the premillennial emphasis concerning the “future kingdom.” The verse is talking to us about the Lord’s PRESENT status as the KING of a KINGDOM. There is no postponement of the sort which the dispies argue.)
I continued reading the text to our Sunday School class: “And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.”
I stopped at this point and said that it sounds to me like the Lord is warning us that there will be foolish professing Christians who will think that they can accept Jesus as Saviour but scoff at His Lordship—which, of course, is the position of the mainstream dispies! (Christ is not condoning this attitude on the part of the dispies. Rather, He is condemning it.)
I continued reading: “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.”
I stopped again and said “Hey, look at this! Upon His return, this Lord Who is already King, Who has been enthroned since He went to heaven, will immediately gather His subjects in one gathering and JUDGE them.”
Hmmmm.... Sounds like the amillennial position to me! In fact, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the premillennial position. Unfortunately, the eyes of the rest of the Sunday School participants were strangely glazed over.
I kept reading the “judgment” section of the parable, eventually getting to the verse which says “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.”
I concluded my comments by saying that the dispensational preachers who teach a “carnal Christian theory” which entails “accepting Jesus as Saviour but not as Lord” are going to have to watch their converts suffer damnation. (And in some cases, the dispensational preachers are going to be damned with them.)
***
Historical premills do not make the completely idiotic mistake which so many dispensationalists make in regard to Luke 19. But I maintain that the parable is opposing all forms of premillennialism--since the parable definitely seems to be telling us that the Lord received his Throne in heaven and that the next time He appears on earth will be Judgment Day.
(I believe historic premillennialism is just a transitional step in the overall downhill slide into the really nasty deception of dispensationalism.)