To turn this around, are you claiming that futurists have not done very hard work in soteriology, ecclesiology, and other areas of theology? I daresay you could not back up that argument.
For instance, we cannot accept the radical distinction between Jew and gentile that some futurists make.
In regards to salvation in Christ, there is no distinction; however, no where does the Bible say that there is no Israel outside the Church--on the contrary, Paul builds a rather extensive case in Romans 9-11 that while there is a remnant of Israel saved within the Church and many of her branches were broken off so that we could be grafted in, that the day would come when God would graft the natural branches back in, "and so all Israel will be saved, as it is written." Thus, Paul draws a distinction between Israel (the natural branches) and the "Gentile" Church (the wild branches).
In short, we non-futurists take all what the Bible says about the second coming "seriously", we just cannot make eschatology preeminent over other areas of theology, especially when the resulting theories do violence to the rest of the Bible.
Futurist eschatology does no violence whatsoever to the rest of the Bible. On the contrary, we believe that God says what He means and means what He says. Since God promises repeatedly in the OT and New to bring Israel back into a right relationship with Himself and that His Messiah will rule from David's throne in Jerusalem, we don't try to twist that.
We've been over this before, doubtless we will again.
Regarding the two passages you cite, I would point out that in Galatians Paul says flat out that he is speaking of Hagar and Sarah and their sons as prophetic types, per v. 24--"which things are symbolic" or "an allegory," and he is comparing the covenant of the flesh--the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic--with the covenant of grace. That does not mean that you can take all of the plainly-spoken prophecies of the OT that the Messiah would rule from Jerusalem and David's throne and twist them to be an allegory of the New Jerusalem.
In regards to Hebrews, it must be pointed out that the fact that we the Church ultimately have our homes in the New Jerusalem in no way presupposes that God cannot either previously or simultaniously restore Old Jerusalem.
One can also understand the passage in the same sense as this one from chapter 11: "And truly if they had called to mind that country from which they had come out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly country. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared a city for them." In other words, the "heavenly country" is not in contrast to the physical land of Israel, but to Ur of the Chaldees. Israel, when Christ Comes again, will be a "heavenly country"--both in the sense of being paradisical and in the sense of being ruled from heaven.
One could expect the same regarding a "heavenly" Jerusalem here on the earth. There are other reconcilliations that have been proposed, but we needn't go through each one.
The New Testament explains all those Old Testament propmises in magnificant details.
No it doesn't. It says that we are citizens in the Kingdom of Heaven now, and that Christ rules from Heaven, but it never once attempts to explain away all of God's promises to Israel as being fulfilled only in allegory in the Church. I mean, you have to pull two NT quotes completely out of context to aborigate away more than 2/3rds of the rest of the Bible. That seems rather out-of-balance to me.
Again, I commend Romans 9-11 to your study:
I say then, have they (Israel) stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness!So tell me, is the Church its own enemy because of the Gospel? Or is Paul saying in no uncertain terms that yes, Israel has fallen because they chose legalism over faith, but that God's plan is to restore the whole nation? Not just the remnant already within the Church (which he deals with in chapter 10), but the whole nation.For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their (Israel again) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?
For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
. . . For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The Deliverer will come out of Zion,Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
And He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob;
For this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins."
You may try to dodge around this issue all you want. But rest assured, the futurist position is not based on a confusion about who and what the Church is or an ignorance of the New Testament.
Again, why do you assume that until means that there is a change of location?
Because otherwise the "until" is superfluous and misleading, and I don't believe that either is ever true with God's Word. Why do you assume that it does not?
But according to some futurist theory, this is not the "end" because you still have to account for a literal 1000 year reign on earth, where death still reigns.
It doesn't exactly "reign" as it does now, but I understand your point. But let's put that aside for a moment, since millenniumism is not our main argument at the moment and I don't want to be sidetracked: I'm still waiting for you to explain how death has been conquered in the here and now. Please, point me to the immortal Christians.
This is an interesting twist on what Romans actually says, namely, that the "natural branches" are the Jews and the "wild branches" are the gentiles (not the "gentile" church). "For I speak to you Gentiles;" (Rom. 11:13).
What is the "root" that Paul speaks of? Well, it must be Jesus Christ. "For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches." (cf. 1 Cor. 15:20). I don't see any option. So, Paul is speaking that both Jews (natural) and gentiles (wild) are grafted into the same Root, Jesus Christ.
This misreading of Romans 11 to imply that there is presently a "wild" branch made up of Jews and gentiles ("gentile church") and a future "natural" branch made up of just Jews is unsupportable. There is a remnant of Israel that will eventually be saved. "Even so then, at this present time there is a remnant according to the election of grace." (Rom. 11:5). It is all by God's grace. It is all according to election. All Israel will be saved in keeping with His election by grace. Paul tells us who "all Israel is, "But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel," (Rom. 9:6).
It's hard to tell whether this twisting of ecclesiology results in failed eschatology, or whether the emphasis on a failed eschatology leads one to adopt a twisted ecclesiology.
But there is an obvious denial by futurists of key New Testament concepts, e.g., that the church is a continuation of the people of God from the Old Testament. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense for the writer of Hebrews to speak of the heavenly Mount Zion and the heavenly New Jerusalem. It makes no sense for Peter to tell the church that they are "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people." It makes no sense for Paul to tell gentiles that they have been "brought near" to the commonwealth of Israel "by the blood of Christ". It would make no sense for Paul to tell gentiles, "Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham." "Only those" who are of faith are the sons of Abraham!! Paul was saying that apostate Jews are not even the sons of Abraham. Exactly what Jesus told the pharisees in John 8 when they said, ""We are Abraham's descendants." He told them, "You are of your father the devil."