Hi jamescarvin.
Joshua pretty clearly indicates that the land part of the promise was fulfilled:
Joshua 21
43 So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. 44 The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. 45 Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.
I see the land promise as a sort of tithe to Abraham. In the Old Testament times, a tithe was given to YHWH to show that He really owned all of your money; the tithe was a way of stating that. God giving Canaan to Abraham t
emporarily was a kinda down payment to Abraham, whose real promise was the whole world.
God Bless. 
I'm getting a little out-numbered here by preterists. And I'm a little frustrated because I just attempted to reply to this post I worked on at length and for some reason it got deleted when I submitted it, so here goes again. Meantime I see there are already three or four other posts.
But whatever...
I totally appreciate your view regarding the tithe of Abrahamic land. I see this as a type of levitical portion that belongs to the earth. But I see Christ reigning from there from what was always Eden, only protected by an angel so that no one could enter. The four rivers that flow from there could only come back if there was a great earthquake. And I think there will be just that when the Lord returns. Otherwise, they have no significance for us, and there is little reason to mention them.
The Abrahamic Covenant certainly describes a territory that extends beyond the borders described that either Joshua or David took. The promises to the forefathers of Israel may have been fulfilled, but not those to Abraham, which extended as far north as the Euphrates and as far south as the River of Egypt. Now we don't know what the River of Egypt may mean. It could be a reference to the Nile, or as others have suggested, something closer to any formerly known parts of Israel. Or, and this is my view, it could refer to the Gishon and the Pishon, because essentially what we are talking about here is a restored Eden when we are referring to the Promised Land. Otherwise the promises are not really worth fighting over.
Somebody also quoted Gregory of Nyssa, a love of mine. He was among a long list of anti-chilliasts who rose up in the fourth century- Caius of Rome, St. Dionysius of Alexandria, Origen, St. Basil, St. Gregory the Nazianzus, St Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Eusebius, St. Augustine and Jerome and lots of others from later times.
Augustine's
City of God describes well the allegorizing of the millennium that equates it with church. And I can fully appreciate his thinking and that of all these fathers who were very encouraged by the new alignment of the church with the human empire that allowed them to preach the Gospel to the whole world unhindered and really enjoy seeing the teaching of Christ and the moral laws of Christianity become the law of the land.
However, to think that they had any insider knowledge regarding eschatology is erroneous. Quite the contrary, out of any early father who preceded them who wrote on the subject, which naturally we have less copy of due to antiquity under persecution, there was a consensus agreement (re: catholic) with respect to the literal interpretation of a millennium. Papyas, Irenaeus, Justin, Barnabas, Hyppolitus: these were not heretics, but the apostolic pillars of the faith, and all were chilliasts. Appolinarius and the Ebionites were also chilliasts, but by contrast, held to a very worldly view of the millennium. The Ebionites were of the party of James. Gregory of Nyssa rightly rejected these chilliasts. For the rest of the church, a future better time, was less of an issue. Good times were already starting to roll. But there was also much to be said for the types that are given for our day through the Comfortor, who is with us always until the end of the age. Just as life began during the first five days and had much in common with man, so does the kingdom begin in the beginning and anticipate its fulfness in Christ.
Gregory of Nyssa complains about multiple resurrections. But millennialists only believe in one resurrection (or translation) per person. And it is not as though he had any insider knowledge on the subject, as did Papyas, a disciple and possible direct acquaintance of John. The type of Bacchanalian feasts some early Hellenistic Christians imagined the millennium to be, particularly the heretics, stem from his fragments, which were misunderstood. When he spoke of grapes competing with eachother to be chosen he was speaking of the fruit of the Spirit, where the seeds of faith sown by the work of the Spirit are multiplied, bearing fruit 30, 60 and 100-fold, in Christ, whose every work yields everlasting results.
No one can question the influence St. Augustine had on the church. Yet most people understand that he carried his Pelagianism with him in much of his thinking, even if he argued against Pelagius at length. The dualism of the flesh versus the spirit came to an all time high as the church started to teach through the Empire and the temptations of the flesh caused many to escape "the world" via the monasteries in the desert. In some cases the depravity of man was absolutized. So the notion that the Kingdom is "not of this world" translated somehow into "not for this earth."
None of what I am speaking of is dispensationalist or NeoDarbian. It goes back 2000 years, not 100 years. I am not a Protestant. I simply believe in the restoration of all things.
I see in the Sacraments the fulfillment of all things, because the incarnate Logos dwells with us in the flesh, declaring to us constantly that we are not God, that we, the body of Christ, have our fulfillment only in Him, that we see now by faith, but one day, face to face. And that we, as body of Christ, are on a journey, not yet having arrived in the Promised Land, yet seeing in this daily Bread, a supply of Life, which does defeat satan, which does mean Life in the Spirit in Rebirth from heaven. We put on Christ, becoming partakers of the divine nature, our hope. We encounter the Alpha and the Omega, the Unchanging, the Perfect Word, the Complete.
Yet our journey has not reached its conclusion. Our bridegroom has not yet met us, even if we already enjoy something like a prenuptial relationship. But the marriage is not fully consummated.And he is not yet all in all. He is complete. We are not. We receive him now by faith. But before the new heavens and the new earth begin, I woulld really like to put on Christ, to be clothed in His righteousness in a much greater way than I now am. I'm sure most people would like that.
What I am telling you is very good news for human history. It is part of the good news of salvation. If he is truly king now, then why are we such hypocrites? And where is our power? Show it to me! I can't make out the face of Christ in this church. He has been utterly obscured.
But in that day, satan is bound, and we enter into a fuller communion. Eden is restored. And the Sacraments continue with a level of thanksgiving the church does not yet know. And would we not recognize him face to face when our bodies are risen in glory, incorruptilble and without stain or blemish, having every molecule of our life in Him? Of course we would, and so will the whole world.
This is one thing I wish people could understand as they consider the Fulness of Truth they partake of. The consummation of all history is already contained in Him. As such the body of Christ is complete. But it is hardly visible in this world. It is not a light to the nations. Maybe it was to some extent, or people hoped it would be in the fourth century. But it certainly isn't now. And history only teaches us man's ways of doing things. The church chose the sword and dies by it. There is hardly anything it has done that the sorcerers of Egypt couldn't imitate. Chris Angel does better tricks than the antichrist.
But bring me the Righteous King who will continue the exorcism he started the day he visited the Gedarenes. I want Him to rule. I'm glad He doesn't have to be elected democratically. People would vote for Obama instead of Hm. I really don't want to go to heaven having to declare that earth's history was not improved by the victory of Jesus. Please don't let this be what goes into the Book of Life! And neither do I want to arrive there complaining that his Words were just a bunch of allegories.
No, let me say that He made the earth His footstool and that he knitted us together and rose us all up in Himself until he became all in all. That is how I'd like the story to go. Wouldn't you? Well, I doubt that any of us here are better authors than He is. So exactly why are we denying that there may be a coming millennium when not only is there plenty of Scripture indicating that it will be, confirmed by the apostolic fathers as such, and when the church stands to be blessed by considering it theologically as I have, and when we, as the human family, have so much to gain by it?
