Amillennialists wouldn't agree, but then again, I'm not dealing with an a-mill.I'm theocratic as well (it is inescapable).
I would definitely argue that the proper eschatology is between pre and post-mill. I've simply taken the former of these. We can discuss this however and as long as you like *shrug*I'll not patronize you with a series of exegeses on these passages. I think you probably know how premill's take these. If you have a specific question on a specific passage, feel free to ask. But I don't want to get into proof-texting and then offering countless rebuttals.1.) I would combine the Church Age and the Messianic age into one age. I can find no Biblical evidence to support the idea that Jesus Christ will reign on earth for some future 1,000 year period. I can, however, find tons of scriptural support for the idea that He is reigning now (Matthew 28:18, John 18:36, Romans 14:17, Revelation 1:5), and that we are currently reigning with Him (Col. 1:13, Rev. 1:6). Over and over again, the message to the Jewish People in the New Testament was "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17). As a result of their disobedience, "the kingdom of God was taken away from then and given to a people producing its fruits" (Matthew 21:43). We see that Jesus reigns prior to the Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:25) and “will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." (Luke 1:33) (This was His first Advent, not His Second.)
Once you introduce a 1,000 year reign into the picture, it throws all kinds of issues into the timeline. For example, you would have (at least) two separate resurrections some 1,007 years apart. How would this coincide with Daniel 12:2 or John 5:28-29, which have the resurrection of the righteous and wicked at the same time? There will be more to this in my next post.
Anyway, I would not have expected the combination of the Church and Messianic age from you. my understanding of postmill is that the Church will establish the Kingdom, at which time Christ will return and receive it. Is that not true? If so, I would think the physical reign of Christ for all of eternity is what we are ultimately looking forward to. What would you term that "age" . . . "the eternal age"? If you notice my breakdown, I combined the eternal state with the kingdom state. Let me go at this one more way.
If I am correct, you believe there will be an actual kingdom of Christ. It began to grow in the first century and will continue to do so until it fills the whole world. At that point, Christ will take His kingdom. Now, in a sense, then, Christ is currently reigning, because to the extent His kingdom has covered the earth, He reigns. However, there is another sense in which He is not yet reigning, and that is the literal reigning that He will do on a physical earth for all of eternity. So you would actually make a break between the development and the establishment of the Kingdom, the latter being defined by the physical rule of Christ, right?
So, what I would have expected would have been a combination of the Jewish age with the Church age, precisely because you believe that the Church is Israel, always has been, and always will be. Thus, the Church was established with the Abrahamic Covenant and will ultimately be fulfilled with Christ's return. So where have I misunderstood postmillennialism proper?
I would be interested in your take on this verse. It reads, "For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way." (NIV) Since you don't believe in a final antichrist, I suppose you would take this as referring to the destruction of the Temple - the abomination of descolatio - which occured in AD 70? I'm not sure how you get "man of sin" to represent Rome, but more importantly, who is "but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way"? If the man of lawlessness is Rome, then the restrainer cannot be Rome itself. It can't be Israel (unbelieving, of course). It can't be the Holy Spirit, in your view, because unbelieving Israel never had the Spirit as they were never elect.2.) You wrote, “At the rapture, then, the Church is removed (2 Thess. 2:7).” 2 Thessalonians 2:7 says nothing about the church being removed, nor does it mention a rapture of any kind. Again, this is a brief overview of my objections, which we can get into details later.
Of course, in the pre-trib view, we take this as the Church is taken out of the way, and then the antichrist is revealed. I suspect we can discuss that in more detail as we progress?
As to your first objection, there are two stock responses.3.) You write, “The entire seven year tribulation period is designed to bring Israel to repentance. At the end of this time, they will look on Jesus "the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zech. 12:10), and "all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:26).” First objection, there is no mention of a 7-year tribulation period in the Bible. Therefore, to assign a purpose for this period is presumptuous. Secondly, Zech. 12 was fulfilled during the time of Esther.
1) There is mention of a final seven year period: Daniel's 70th week. Granted, you find that to have all been fulfilled, but your interpretation doesn't mean that there is no support for the opposing position. As we interpret Dan. 9:24-27, there is a final week mentioned. Further, Jeremiah 30 talks about the restoration of Israel. They were, at that time, captives in Babylon, and God promised their deliverance. He said that He will bring them back to their land, but in the day that happens, there will be a time of great trouble and "none will be like it" (30:7). However, God will save them out of that time of tribulation. Add to this the fact that Jeremiah 29:10 promises only seventy years of captivity, which is when Daniel began to pray about Israel's deliverance (Dan. 9:1-3), then it seems pretty clear that this "time of Jacob's trouble" is closely related to Daniel's vision. Again, though, this is standard dispensational stuff.
2) We cannot expect the 2000+ year gap between this final week and the first sixty nine to be explicitly stated in Scripture. Paul flatly declares that it is was a mystery - by definition, a thing unknown in the past - that the Jews would reject their Messiah and be kept in blindness for a time "until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in" (Rom. 11:25, KJV). Now, the prophets did see both a triumphant and a suffering Christ. It is so clear that, as you know, the Jews had come to expect two messiahs. It was simply not revealed that this would be the same Messiah coming a two different times. There is a lot that hints at that, and there is a lot that makes sense in light of that revelation, but it was never explicitly revealed, which is why it was a mystery. That being the case, it would be absurd to expect to find in OT prophecy a promise of rejection, followed by a promise of a Church, followed by the seven years of tribulation. So far as Jewish eschatology was concerned, the Messiah would come at a time of trouble and restore the land. They are right. But, they missed the fact that that coming will be the Second Coming.
As an aside, I've not seen it argued that Zech 12 was fulfilled in Esther's time. Would you care to ellaborate? I've read a some post-mill work, but, of course, not everything.
1) Gal. 3: I don't see how this "clearly [states] that the Abrhamic Covenant isf ulfilled in the church and only in the church." You could interpret Paul's words to mean as such, but it doesn't "clearly" state that . . .4.) You added, “Christ will then return and establish His eternal kingdom, at which time the Abrahamic Covenant, and all its daughter covenants, will finally be fulfilled." What about Galatians Chapter 3. Is Paul, a Hebrew, mistaken when He clearly writes that the Abrahamic Covenant is fulfilled in the church and only the church? What about the kingdom that Christ has now? (See above). Will it be defeated? Why did Jesus tell us concerning the “fig tree” that “May no fruit ever come from you again!" (Matthew 21:19). Was He wrong? What will you do with 2 Peter 3:10-13. It seems to me that the plain reading of the Scripture suggests that once Christ returns, there won't be any place on earth for Him to sit and rule over.
Specifically, Paul says that those who believe are children of Abraham. I don't suspect that has any bearing on your position, because Paul makes it a big point about the Covenant not being fulfilled in the children, but in Christ. Now, Christ is the head of the Church, but the promise to Abraham as to a kingdom and a people. The borders of that Kingdom are very clearly established in Gen. 15:18-21. Christ does not currently reign there, and neither does the Church. So, I don't see how this passages helps your position. Now, from my perspective, Christ will return and establish His Kingdom, at which time, He will set the borders as He sees fit. He will then rule and the promise will be fulfilled in Christ, just as both OT and NT prophecy tells us. Regardless, I think the word "clearly" is too strong for your position.
2) As for the kingdom Christ has now: Neither Col. nor Rev. says that we are currently reigning with Christ. Feel free to offer an exegesis of those passages. As for the other four verses you provided, Matt. says that all authority has been given to Jesus. Fair enough, nobody is arguing against that. John says that the Kingdom is not of this world, and who argues that it is? In Johannine thought, "world" refers to the fallen world in rebellion to God. I realize you don't believe that, as you take "world" to be "the elect" in John 3:16. But, again, we are dealing with interpretation. Jesus is saying there that the Kingdom is one or righteousness and will not be the same as human kingdoms, gained by politics, war, and insurrection. Romans has a similar idea . . . the issue is condemning one another in legalism. But the Kingdom isn't about that. It is about righteousness and Spirit. And finally, Rev refers to Christ's sovereignty over the world. Again, no one disputes that.
But, let me ask you about that last one. Job's story happens before, or around, the time of Abraham. He certainly would not have been a Jew proper. However, Satan had to ask permission to attack him. This demonstrates Christ's sovereignty over "the god of this world" even before Abraham. However, if the Abrahamic Covenant is being fulfilled through the Church, and Israel was also the Church, then when did Christ start reigning? When did He become Sovereign? With Abraham? At Pentecost? I suppose He has always been sovereign, but what does that do to the concept of Christ's Kingdom now? And how does that differentiate between the Kingdom Christ will receive at His return?
So, in answer to all of this, Christ's Kingdom will not be defeated. The Church will exist until she is taken away. However, I simply do not see the Church as fulfilling or representative of the Theocratic Kingdom.
3) As for the Fig Tree, I know you take that as a reference to the people of Israel, but I really do not see an exegetical reason to do so. We can work by way of analogy, but Jesus Himself tells us the point of the living parable. Anything we ask in faith, we receive. Jesus was expecting fruit, it didn't give any, so He cursed the tree. Unless Jesus or the Apostles clearly state that this is a reference to Israel, I don't think it should be taken that way. Besides this, even among those who do take this as an allusion to the Jews, there is still the true vine vs. unfruitful Israel contrast (Is. 5:1-5; John 15:1). Some argue that the curse was on "unfruitful Israel" . . . those who reject Christ. Like I said, I think that is taking it too far, but, then again, I really don't see a proper connection with those particular people, per se.
4) I am glad you pointed out 2 Pet 3:10-13. This is a good example of sloppy dispensational interpretation. I am surprised that you asked about it, though, as Pentecost explains this concept in some detail. It is important to distinguish between "the day of the Lord" and "the day of Christ." The former of these does not refer to a specific instance, but rather to the entire eschaton. The latter referrs more specifically to "the expectation of the Church, her translation, glorification, and examination for reward." (Things to Come, 232). Of course, "day" doesn't generally mean one twenty-four hour period in eschatology.
So, this passage is referring especially to the GWT Judgment and the establishment of the New Heaven and New Earth, which is all a part of the Day of the Lord.
This I understand, and it is why I find it more acceptable that amillennialism. I took an eschatology course this past semester and was assigned to argue in favor of post-mill. The chief argument agaist us, of course, was the lack of literal hermeneutic and the replacement of Israel. It was wonderful to be able to say, "Oh, you don't understand. The Church doesn't replace Israel. We are Israel! Therefore, those promises ARE to you!" In any case, I think, though, that this position makes too light of Matt. 21:43, "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit." (NIV) You really can't have this both ways, which is what I see post-mill doing. On the one hand, you want to say that Israel (the elect portion) was the Church. However, Christ tells the Pharisees that the Kingdom would be taken away from them and given to another, which you take to be the Church. However, since they did not believe, then it must be concluded that they were not a part of "elect Israel." In that case, they never had the Kingdom to begin with, and therefore, it could not be taken from them.5.) Finally, postmillennialists do not believe that the church supercedes Israel. We believe that the church IS Israel (and always has been, even in the OT). Before I get into each part in detail, I have one more post that explains why postmillennialism is superior to other eschatologies.
Premill. doesn't have that problem. The Kingdom was offered to them, and they rejected it. Thus, it was taken away and will be offered to another people, the Israel of the Tribulation. They will accept it.
As for your second post, I don't think it would be all that productive for me to answer each one of those point by point. I could, but it would be very time consuming, and I suspect each of those points will come up in some form or fashion in specific discussion. Besides, I'm not looking to disprove postmill. You were asking about my eschatology, so I'm offering answers. I don't have too much concern for arguing againts yours, although there are aspects of it I would like to better understand. Anyway, if any of those ideas have a direct bearing on the subject, we can certainly deal with them. If not, then I will assume that, while interesting, they aren't specifically related to the discussion and would be more of a distraction that a beneficial area to explore. Fair enough?
God bless
). 
