Allegory in Revelation?

I still have to think about the idea of some that Revelation's forecast of church history mirrors OT prophecies about Israel.

Some adherents to Covenant Theology say the prohecies about Israel are actually fulfilled by church history, not by Jewish history.

Unfortunately I had a bad introduction to Covenant Theology and still feel turned off by the attitudes I encountered.

I found many adherents to Covenant Theology had a tacit inability to concede that any reference to Israel in Bible Prophecy ever meant natural Israel at all. And if you suggested it, they'd use every method at their legal disposal to punish you for it.

To the extreme that when I asked them for a verse which they felt is the strongest verse which meant Messiah had to minister in natural Israel, none could answer.

Of course the reason none could answer is because if one of them gave even a single verse, they would be afraid of being seen to commit that dreaded error of assigning a natural rather than Covenantal meaning to Israel.

But what that meant in effect is that so far as they can acertain, Messiah could just as well have been born in Baghdad instead of Bethlehem, or ministered in Idumea instead of Israel.

Yet spiritualising all references to Israel in prophecy like that, removes all geographical and historical basis for our assertion that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled the details required by Messianic prophecy.

The Apostles, on the other hand, asserted that there had been the fulfilment in Israel, and for Israel, of God's promises to Israel.

And when they sought to justify the inclusion of Gentiles in the Church, they quoted prophecies which nominated Gentiles specifically, rather than spiritualise the identity of Israel in prophecy.

In other words they established their case for Jesus being Messiah, and justified the mixed Jewish and Gentile Church, without disloyalty to the identities in prophecy, but through loyalty to every detail.

Yet I was removed from one discussion group, and well-nigh disfellowshipped from two others, for suggesting such a view of prophecy.

When I asked the same question of Dispensationalists (a verse indicating Messiah had to minister in natural Israel), the Thread straightaway lit up with verses. They even wondered why such an obvious question should ever have to be asked.

The contrast left me wondering about the theology which made adherents to Covenant Theology blind to one of the most obvious facts in Biblical history! (Messiah's prophesied ministry in Israel.)

So although I think Dispensationalists are wrong for thinking Israel's prophecies have been postponed, I think they're right in saying prophecies about Israel were actually about Israel.

So if Revelation is about the same events as Old Testament prophecy, then that might extend the historical timeframe for the fulfilment of prophecies about Israel beyond AD70 perhaps.

But if Revelation is about the Church, not about Israel, then that might mean John was referencing already-fulfilled prophecies about Israel, only as allegories of New Covenant issues. 

That method is possible I guess, because Paul used that technique when discussing faith versus works. He referenced history about Ishmael and Hagar, and made it an allegory of a present truth - without denying the historical aspect.