Means to an Ends Time

Just hours after the attacks on Iran began, disturbing interpretations of the conflict emerged. The violence itself is disturbing enough, of course, but one hopes that there was a series of rational explanations that got us here. Yet, military personal began reporting that they were being told from higher ups to interpret the conflict through a (narrow) biblical lens. More than 100 service members across dozens of bases made reports to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation that commanders were framing operations as part of God’s plan for Armageddon and the return of Christ.

To this dangerous strain of Christianity, one wants to accelerate violence and tribulations in order to hurry Christ’s return. They interpret prophets as literal geopolitical predictions and the Book of Revelation as a blueprint in which they can be major players in controlling the narrative.

Iran is viewed as modern Persia. Israel (and ally U.S) as the modern Israelites. A war between them as the battle of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38). Interpretations always vary to accommodate current geopolitics; currently the prevailing idea is that Gog (Iran) and Magog (Russia/China) will invade Israel, with God supernaturally intervening to protect Israel. The Third Temple will be rebuilt, with the Dome of the Rock destroyed and a red heifer sacrificed. Jesus will come back and establish peace.

First, this is bad theology. Point blank. For most of Christianity, no one was concerned with concrete details of Christ’s return. He would keep His promises, He would return, and we must be ready for Him. It was a personal, spiritual call to prepared, like the brides with oil in their lamps.

Dispensational premillennialism developed in the late nineteenth century and views biblical prophecy as forecasting current countries, leaders, and conflicts. John Nelson Darby is known for developing the foundations of dispensationalism (it can vary widely along different churches and interpretations). American preacher Cyrus Scofield published a study Bible in 1909 with dispensationalist commentary and a focus on eschatology. This is where many American fundamentalists began embracing dispensational premillennialism.

Dispensationalists always believe they are the last the generation, on the cusp of the Tribulation, when there will be global wars and the rise of “the” antichrist. The good will be raptured up to heaven while the bad will be left to suffer. Then Christ will return and establish His reign of peace. They focus on getting the interpretation right, naming the right enemies and setting a timetable for when the Tribulation will begin.

Second, we are not asked to do this. Calculus of spiritual messages is not asked of God’s people. No one knows the day or hour. Nor do we know specific mechanisms of Christ’s return. We are not asked to. We are asked to love God and love our neighbors. Ends don’t justify the means. The commandments don’t change just because someone calculated Oct. 23, 1914 as the end of the world or identified Magog as the Soviet Union.

They create these future narratives of how it will all play out, and their role in it. But it’s projection; it’s fantasy. It’s speculation, not here and now. But that worldview affects the here and now. Why work for peace if global war is needed to usher in Christ? Why raise children with compassion if they must be trained to be soldiers of the biggest battle in history? Why spend years in college getting an education if the world is just a few years away from ending? Why work to reduce climate change when Jesus will sort it all out when He gets here soon? There is an arrogance and urgency in this worldview that keeps people from taking a deep breath and questioning if this is how God really operates. Would He really ask you to callously (or even gleefully) destroy millions of people? Would He smile upon war and famine and death? Will He judge you on how you loved or how to calculated?

Of course, I don’t believe those in the highest levels of power even believe this. This is a war over oil and real estate. As it usually is. The rich want to be richer, and the powerful want more power, and they want the poor and weak to sacrifice for it. But that doesn’t galvanize the citizenry to take up arms and send their children to kill and die. There has to be a moral stake for most people to accept war. So, they frame it in the highest, most emotionally-charged stakes they can: good vs. evil, civilization vs. barbarism, Christ or against Christ. If only we defeat these people, if we demolish their cities and kill their children and poison their land, then all will well. The ends justify the means when the ends are the literal end times.