It is not clear to me what you regard as especially postmillennial about Dr. Fee's remarks. His approach has elements, it seems to me, of several approaches (near futurist, some historicist and perhaps preterist aspects, literary, etc.) that add up to a sane and reasonable approach to the book. Some of what he says seems inarguable to me.
What he says, however, I believe would fit many amillennial, postmillennial, or even historic premillennial eschatological schemes. Do you label him as postmillennial because he explicitly rejects dispensationalism? Thanks for any clarity that you might offer to this.
Alan D. Strange
Professor, Mid-America Reformed Seminary