Then in that you are amil. Except for that last sentence which in its wording removes his divine nature. And don't forget, Father, Son and Spirit are One. They never act independently of each other.
Christ's reign doesn't remove his divine nature. The divine nature cannot be exalted, enthroned, or given authority. Because it is eternally sovereign, immutable, and the source of authority. And Christ doesn't receive divine authority in his divine nature. He eternally has it as God. So he receives authority in his human nature as man and the divine nature is the fountain of authority. That means the divine nature empowers the reign, but doesn't become the reign.
So why then does historic premil insist that he must reign present on earth in Israel for a literal one thousand years?
I see you want to change the topic of the thread and discuss Historic Premillennialism.
Why do Historic premillennialism insist on a future, earthly, Israel‑centered reign of Christ?
Because we see Christ’s kingship as the completion of Adam’s and David’s earthly vocations, not merely a spiritual rule from heaven. Adam’s mandate is to rule, subdue, and cultivate the earth. Because Christ fulfills Adam’s vocation as the Second Adam. His kingship must be exercised in the same arena where Adam failed. Likewise, the Davidic covenant promises a son of David who will sit on David’s throne in Zion, ruling Israel and the nations from a real geographic location. These covenants are not abstract or heavenly; they are genealogical, territorial, and political. And also, because I simply refuse to spiritualize these promises or relocate them to heaven, insisting instead that Christ’s human kingship must be exercised in a human sphere.
Explain what you mean by "Christ's human operation". If Jesus has his glorified human nature where he is with the Father---and he does---and he is reigning from heaven now---which he is---whatever means brings about his intended purpose is from both his human nature and his divine nature.
Not only would I explain it but also define it for you.
Definition: Christ’s human operation refers to every action and activity that the Person of the Son performs according to his human nature.
It includes all the functions that arise from the human nature, example: thinking, willing, speaking, acting, suffering, learning, obeying, ruling, judging, and reigning. These are exercised by the Person of the Son who has assumed that nature. The operation is “human” because its source is the human nature and proper to humanity.
Explanation: The “human operation” is not passive, but fully active and operative as a real, complete human nature. When Christ reasons, obeys, prays, suffers, or reigns, He does so in and through the human nature. The divine nature or some kind of "spiritual" thingy doesn't replace or absorb these operations. Rather, the Person of the Son personally activates them. This is why Constantinople III insisted on two natural operations (divine and human) because each nature must express its own proper operations without confusion or division. Christ’s human operation is therefore the concrete expression of his humanity. He rules, judges, and mediates as a true man, exercising human willing and acting, even while the divine nature supplies infinite authority and power.
Functional Docetism does not deny that Christ possesses a real human nature; rather, it denies that this humanity is operative in his present work and reign. It affirms the ontology of the incarnation while treating Christ’s humanity as practically inert, like present in theory but irrelevant in function. If you say that Christ's reign is spiritual the human nature becomes a passive appendage rather than the active instrument through which the Son rules, mediates, judges, and exercises his kingship. Basically, the human nature is non-operative, so his thinking, willing, speaking, acting, suffering, learning, obeying, ruling, judging, and reigning is spiritual and not human by any logical means.
I agree. What does that have to do with amillennialism? And why is all your emphasis put on his human nature and leaves out his divine nature? You have not mentioned that once. How does that figure into his reigning from heaven?
Because Amillennialism places Christ’s present reign entirely in heaven and understands it as a spiritual, non‑localized, non‑bodily kingship. That means the mode of his rule is not exercised through his human faculties (his human willing, judging, mediating, or governing) but through his divine sovereignty alone or some kind of spiritual means. Sure, amillennials believe that Christ’s humanity is affirmed as a fact of the incarnation, yet it plays no operative role in his present kingship. His human nature does not function as the instrument of his rule, after all, you teach that it is spiritual. This is why the question of
human operation becomes central. If Christ’s human nature is not actively exercising these functions, then his present reign is structurally a divine‑only operation, which sidelines the very humanity that Scripture presents as the Second Adam and the Son of David.
The reason my earlier emphasis fell on the human nature is because the divine nature is not in dispute. Everyone agrees that Christ reigns with divine omnipotence, divine authority, and divine sovereignty. The real question is whether his human nature participates in that reign as the mode through which the Person of the Son rules. The divine nature is the eternal source of his authority, but a nature does not sit on a throne or fulfill the Adamic and Davidic vocations; only the Person acts, and he acts through natures.
When you tell me exactly what YOU mean by "human operation" I will be able to respond to that accordingly. The way I see it, if Jesus is reigning in his glorified human body from heaven, that is human operation and also divine operation as he did not lose his divine nature at the resurrection either. But perhaps you mean we need to see arms and legs moving and/or anything done by someone else at his decree is then not his human operation but the operation of the other one and therefore the other one is doing the reigning. Who knows.
I don't know how many times this must be articulated in this thread. But here is goes again,
When I speak of “human operation,” I’m not talking about visible limbs moving or Christ needing to perform physical gestures for his humanity to be operative. I’m talking about the Son acting through the faculties proper to his human nature. His human mind, human will, human judgment, and human mediatorial office. If Christ’s present reign is exercised only in a spiritual, non‑localized, heavenly mode, then his divine operation is fully active but his human operation is not functioning as the mode of his kingship. Yes, he reigns in a glorified human body from heaven, and that affirms the ontology of his humanity, but the question is whether his human nature is actually the instrument through which he rules now, or whether his present reign is spiritual in mode and his human operation awaits the age to come. That’s the distinction I’m trying to clarify, not denying his present reign, but distinguishing the mode of its operation.
Was it Christ's glorified human body that returned to the Father and is seated at his right hand (a position of authority)? Did he take his divine nature with him (I speak in human terms)? Why have you separated them and why the Modalist application?
Yes. Christ returned to the Father in his glorified human body and is now seated at the Father’s right hand in that same glorified humanity, and of course he did not leave his divine nature behind. Because it's the same divine nature that the Father and the Holy Spirit subsist. Also, the Person of the Son is indivisibly divine and human; but acknowledging that does not mean I am separating the natures or applying anything Modalistic.
.
! The chief difference between commonly held amillennialism and postmillennialism is in regard to the belief in an increasingly victorious effect of the gospel. Dominionists think the gospel influence will fulfill the 
.
.
