Perhaps amil, premil, and postmil are all wrong. One can argue by analogy with the first coming:

The Jews agreed that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem--but Jesus was considered to have come from Nazareth. His birth in Bethlehem was not public knowledge, from what we know.

The Jews argued if there would be one Messiah or two--they never considered a forerunner plus one Messiah.

They argued if He would be a suffering servant or a conquering king--He was/is/will be both successively, depending on one's interpretation. No one suggested one Messiah who would be both.

He would be a prophet, but according to Elijah or Moses? The forerunner was according to Elijah, the Messiah was the new lawgiver. Big surprise.

He would be the son of David (majority opinion) but there were noises about His being the son of Joseph. Joseph also figured in a father role.

A reasonable surmise is that God is doing an encore of the first coming as regards the second--giving us some data but not enough to allow us to be ****-sure. Whatever the future brings, it will fit all the data but all the mills will be wrong in one, some, or all points, just like the Jews were wrong in many points as regards the first coming.

Any comments?

__________________
Mary Vanderkooi
Kale Heywott Church (KHC)
Soddo, Ethiopia