I agree that most of the Bible Prophecies that Dispensationalsits and Christian Zionists want to cite as being about 1948 like Isaiah 11:11 are clearly about something far more Supernatural and Messianic, where they return in belief. However I disagree with Rob Skiba that they are about the Millennium. I think they are about the New Heaven and New Earth and the descent of New Jerusalem.
Well, Ezekiel 37 is an exception, that is the one directly linked to the Resurrection, that is clearly about the Millennium, though I think it may be possible it'll take the entire Millennium for all of it to be fully fulfilled. And then Ezekiel 38&39 are about what happens between the end of the Millennium and the White Throne Judgment. And then Ezekiel 40-48 are about the New Heaven and New Earth.
Psalm 48 is about New Jerusalem. I've already argued that Isaiah 65-66 define themselves as being about the New Heaven and New Earth. Leviticus 26&Deuteronomy 29 is where Bible Prophecy about the regathering of Israel begins, they I have come to view as not fully finally fulfilled until the descent of New Jerusalem.
I have talked before about how The Millennium is not as Utopic as people are assuming it will be. For Believers it'll certainly be better then the world is now. But most of the World will be obeying Jesus out of Fear not Love during this time. This is where I think Zechariah 14 ends.
The Rothschild involvement in the 1948 birth of modern Israel is grossly overstated by my fellow Conspiracy Theorists. Some of them financially supported it, but they were not the masterminds of it. And to this day some Rothschilds are still Anti-Zionists.
Anti-Zionist Christians like to say it can only be God doing it if it's blatantly Supernatural. And when we remind them about Cyrus they dismiss that by saying that God would tell his people through his Prophets if he was going to do it that way. Well I'm a Continuationist, and the fact is throughout the 19th and early 20th Century many Christians seemed to know the time of Israel's return was approaching, and history vindicated them.
God tells us it was Him who scattered them, even though to terrestrial eyes it was Gentile Nations. So who says their return can't be done the same way?
The Roman Captivity was very much a repeat of the Babylonian Captivity, right down to events playing out on the same days. Chah Schafer has been talking a lot about Egypt's overlooked significance to the Roman Captivity, well Egypt was very vital to the Babylonian Captivity as well. Jeremiah tells us that many Jews were taken to Egypt after Jerusalem fell, and that is part of why Egypt was carried away into Captivity by Babylon.
So it makes sense that the Return from the Roman Captivity would be very similar to the return from the Babylonian Captivity. Truman however was not the Cyrus of 1948 like he sought to claim to be, he had nothing to do with making it happen. Great Britain was in the role of Cyrus, and it's King at this time interestingly had Arthur in his full name. Great Britain cemented their status as a modern successor to Rome when they defeated Napoleon and erected the Wellington Arch. Just as Cyrus had taken the throne of Nebuchadnezzar.
However another layer of Typology is that I see the Seven Years King David ruled from Hebron as a type of the Seven Year period over which much of Revelation will play out. And the time David Ruled from Jerusalem a type of the Millennium, and the early Reign of Solomon, when he was doing well, as a type of the full Messianic Kingdom. In which context it's interesting to remember that before that was the reign of King Saul.
Could Modern Israel's destiny be to become the House of Saul to the Returning Jesus's David? It's interesting that the current Prime Minister is named Benjamin, after Saul's Tribe. I also alluded to reasons based on Jeremiah 6 for associating modern Israel with Benjamin in a Revelation 12 theory I came to last year. In which case it's interesting that Ishbosheth ruled in the Trans-Jordan, near Mount Hermon.
The secular Capital of Modern Israel is Tel-Aviv. The Ancient City that Tel-Aviv is adjacent to is Joppa/Jaffa. Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa. Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).
It's interesting that most Ahskenazim (and to a lesser extend many Shephardi) families that claim descent from David, do so via Rashi who did so via Hillel The Elder. Hillel claimed through his mother descent from David's son Shaphatiah by Avital. But Tribal Identity was traditionally determined paternally, and Hillel's father was a Benjamite, since he was born in Babylonia he may come from the same Benjamite clan that Esther and Mordecai did, which came from a relative of Saul. Gamaliel was Hillel's grandson, Paul claimed to have studied at his feet, and we know Paul was a Benjamite and originally a namesake of Saul, could Paul have been a relative of the House of Hillel?
The Khazar myth about where the Ashkenazim come from can be easily debunked
Some like Britam and Veilikovsky (in Beyond the Mountains of Darkness) have sought to claim Lost Tribes descent for the Khazars. But I find it more interesting that Benjamin has a son named Rosh (Genesis 46:21), and that the name of Rosh can also be linked to the same region as Meshech and Tubal, which is the land where the Khazars emerged, between the Black and Caspian Seas (something Chris White has also talked about).
I obviously disagree with the aspects of Velikovsky's argument that involve reinterpreting where Assyria first took them, I've built much of this Blog on that they were taken to parts of eastern Iraq and northern Iran. But it's also possible that just as some remnants of the northern Tribes existed in Judah, that some Benjamites might have been among those deported when Samaria fell. When the division first happened the border was mostly Benjamite territory on Judah's side. But later there were times were Israel was winning in it's wars with Judah and so the border moved further south.
We also see David promising Johnathon Ben Saul that his seed would be preserved. And we see that later when he spared Johnathon's son Mephibosheth from the killing of descendants of Saul done to appease the Gibeonites. Often such promises correlate to that line having a role to play in Eschatology.