Religious Influence on Government
Virginia Baptists under the leadership of John Leland influenced James Madison and his writing of the Bill of Rights. They wouldn’t vote for ratification of the Constitution in Virginia without freedom of religion in a first amendment. This was a quid pro quo situation for the Baptists and Madison. After the consequences of the Great Awakening, Virginia had so many Baptists that they needed their support to pass legislation.
Religious folk still influence both domestic and foreign policy in the United States. In particular, the eschatology of American evangelicals affects politicians and lawmakers. Overall, Jews are no friend of evangelicals. A large majority of Jews treat evangelicals like trash. They hate and disdain them. Jews most often vote just the opposite as evangelicals and even try to ruin most of what they like. They direct caustic verbiage toward evangelicals, insulting them in a hateful manner. Nevertheless, a large number of evangelicals eagerly continue supporting Israel. Why?
Premillennialism
Many genuine, born-again Christians take the Bible literally. They approach the prophetic portions of scripture grammatically and historically. Even though prophecies contain figurative language, they interpret them according to their plain meaning. They believed like this from the first century until today. In more recent historical times, Christians established a literal method of interpretation of scripture, called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism systematized a belief already held by Christians, titled premillennialism.
Premillennialism is a theological perspective within Christian eschatology that asserts that Jesus Christ will physically return to Earth (the Second Coming) before the establishment of a literal thousand-year reign known as the Millennium. This belief corresponds to a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1–6, which describes a period during which Christ reigns on earth following His return. The premillennial view emphasizes a literal reading of biblical texts, particularly those concerning end-time events. This approach maintains that prophecies regarding Christ’s second coming and the ensuing kingdom should be understood in their plain meaning unless context suggests otherwise.
A critical aspect of premillennialism is the belief that Old Testament Israel and the New Testament church are distinct entities with separate roles in God’s plan. Promises made to Israel, especially regarding land and kingdom, are viewed as not fulfilled by and in the church. Like Paul confirmed in Romans 11:26, “Israel shall be saved.”
A Voting Bloc of Premillennialists
Sixty-five percent of evangelical leaders identify as premillennial. According to various surveys, a substantial number of evangelicals hold premillennial beliefs, particularly in conservative circles. This aligns with the findings from an evangelical leaders survey, suggesting that premillennialism is indeed the dominant perspective within evangelicalism. Even among non-believers in non-evangelical churches and even non-church goers believe premillennialism.
Many evangelicals don’t identify as Baptist and many truly saved Baptists don’t identify as evangelicals. Many Charismatics do not consider themselves as evangelicals and evangelicals don’t consider themselves Charismatic. Without overlap, all evangelicals, Baptists, and Charismatics come to about 35% of the population of the United States. A higher percentage of Charismatics are premillennial than even evangelicals and Baptists.
65% of 35% is 23%. That would make twenty-three percent of Americans as premillennial. Twenty-tree percent of the 340 million Americans is 78 million premillennialists. That’s a very large and influential voting bloc and their eschatology affects their foreign policy.
Support of Israel and Opposition to Globalism
Premillennialists will support Israel. They also oppose globalism because they think this world will end with a one world government. This affects their position on borders and foreign wars. Part of the support of an American first agenda relates to opposition to the globalist perspective that involves the United States in unending foreign entanglements and wars.
I can see why a 35% voting bloc at least wants the United States to give Israel a free reign to defeat their enemies in the Middle East. Also, I understand why these same voters do not support the war in the Ukraine. This isn’t hatred of the Ukraine, but it is a distrust in an administrative state within the United States that wants globalism. These same characters villainize Russia to undermine the candidate that most champions their causes.
Opposition of the Biblical Views
A particular United States foreign policy dovetails with biblical premillennialism. The premillennial voters have an agenda which they see as within the will of God. That makes the left crazy. It wants to censor and even imprison these people as political enemies. The left sees them as complete kooks. The leftists don’t think anyone should depend on the Bible for any political decisions. I think we would find a fairly large percentage that would prefer the death of premillennialists, whom they see as a scourge of the earth.
The Bible is true. God expects us to know what it means, called the perspicuity of scripture. He wants us to believe it and live according to it. This includes all the prophetic passages. What He says will occur in the future will in fact occur in the future.
” Overall, Jews are no friend of evangelicals. A large majority of Jews treat evangelicals like trash. They hate and disdain them. Jews most often vote just the opposite as evangelicals and even try to ruin most of what they like.”
That is why as a premillennialist, I do not support a Zionist Sodom and Gomorrah God hating Jew (Amos 6:14, Jeremiah 7:28, etc.). I support no wars (Matthew 5:44). We are to have no respecter of persons. They all our lost and need the gospel (Arabs and Jews).
A Christian should stay neutral in any “outside” conflict. They have no business supporting any killing unless it is a direct unwarranted armed trespass on your border at home (Ephesians 5:28 cf. Titus 2:4), your neighbors border (Matthew 5:43) or a national border (Daniel- Gentile nations).
I would view support for sending weapons to the Ukrainians so they can defend themselves or not doing so, allowing them to be massacred and raped by the Russians, as more a matter of isolationism versus a more aggressive foreign policy stance among different sorts of Republicans rather than a matter of dispensationalism or views on the millenium. Premillennial Christians would be generally wary of Russia because of the prophecies in Ezekiel about Gog and Magog, and millennial Christians strongly supported Reagan and Bush, who would no doubt have strongly supported Ukraine. Most Republicans, like most Democrats, follow whatever their top leader says is right. Under Reagan the real Republicans were aggressive in their foreign policy and wanted a human life amendment to the Constitution. Now Trump is on top, so many Republicans are more dovish on foreign policy and an anti-abortion human life amendment is out the window.
I do think the premillennialism relates to not sending support to Ukraine. I don’t agree with your assessment above either, Thomas. I understand what you’re saying. I could go line by line on why I think you’re wrong. I’m guessing you don’t want to get into that kind of tit for tat. I don’t really want to either. You take what I would say is essentially a neo-con position.
I know this: If I start to discuss it here, I’ll have to deal with people who don’t want a substantive discussion on it.
It’s not so much the support of the Ukraine as it is how we got into the war in the first place, what people did behind the scenes in an arrogant way to get us into that war. Meanwhile, our Southern border is porous and the country is in deep decline. On the abortion front, it took Trump to get Roe overturned. Reagan didn’t do that. He picked George H.W. Bush, who was a moderate on abortion. Trump is practicing a kind of incrementalism to save more lives. It’s easy to see. You turn it over to the states, so states can take as strong a position as they want. As a country, we’re not going to pass a constitutional amendment or even pass a national ban. For Trump to get in those three justices, he had to win that election over Hillary.
Thank you for writing, I agree.
Historically, two general laws are recognized internationally: the right to self-determination and conquest.
Both laws and their ethics are debated in the Melian Dialogue from Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War. The right to the former is dependent on a nation’s ability in the latter. In the words of Thucydides, “The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.”
Israel is a strong nation that wins its own wars, but on occasion, with assistance from the United States (e.g. Operation Nickel Grass).
Ukraine is a losing proposition. It has historically been part of Russia: sharing a common language, culture, religion, history, and ethnic group; Ukraine means “borderland,” as Putin pointed out in his Tucker interview; Ukrainian Nationalism is right-wing (in its classic understanding) and builds itself on WWII area Nazi collaborators, viewing them as the “fathers” of modern, independent Ukraine. This is how someone like, Yaroslav Hunka, a member of the Ukrainian 14th SS Waffen Grenadier Division (1st Galatian Division), received two standing ovations from Justin Trudeau and the Canadian parliament during a State visit by Volodymyr Zelensky to Canada last year.
Russia and Israel are both nuclear powers with formidable and victorious militaries. They’re each the “Strong” nation in their respective wars. They will win, assuming a larger scale international intervention does not occur. In both cases, overt foreign intervention would likely lead to World War III and a nuclear exchange. Therefore, the best course is to allow them to achieve their goals and make a deal that benefits the United States along the way (Luke 14:28).
For Christians, I believe supporting Israel is within God’s will. Israel is centerstage for Daniel’s 70th Week. I would also argue a strong Russia is God’s will because of the war in Ezekiel 38 and 39. Could the war in Ukraine and the Levante be setting the stage for that war? Maybe. Time will tell. If it is, who is the United States to stand against the will of God? I think these two ideas may also capture the sentiment of Premillennial Dispensationalists for both conflicts in addition to general opposition to globalism.
Benjamin,
I’m in agreement, but I wouldn’t have made your argument against a Russia proxy war in the Ukraine. I didn’t even explain or make an argument, except that globalism supporters of the administrative state support these interventions, which they started. Supporting Israel’s powerful army is an interest based on that support in the U.S. The Ukraine is another venture of U.S. power among those who do not send their children to war.
Dear Bro Benjamin,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Just to clarify a few things:
1.) The statement you quoted from Thucydides is the Athenians boasting. They got thrashed and it is hardly clear from the context that this statement is endorsed by Thucydides, rather than the Athenians being hubristic.
2.) What Putin said to Tucker Carlson was riddled with severe historical inaccuracies and was Kremlin propaganda.
3.) In World War II most people who were fighting in Ukraine were either in the Soviet or the Nazi army. My grandfather in Hungary was drafted into the Nazi army in World War II although he actually believed in communism and was a proud communist. You didn’t get to say no. That, of course, does not mean that, for example, the Jewish president of Ukraine many decades later is a Nazi.
Perhaps someone can make a case that the country in continental Europe with the largest population of Baptists should have their religious freedom wiped out and should not be given weapons to defend themselves, although all throughout the Cold War we gave weapons to people who did not want to get taken over by Russia and never got into World War III, or even that Putin should be allowed to keep going and reconquer all of Eastern Europe, as he wants to do. I do not want to fight a nuclear war over Ukraine, certainly. But I have a hard time seeing how dispensational premillennialism is a factor anywhere close in significance to whatever the current head of the Republican party happens to say about it. People who agreed with Reagan’s keeping Russia in check and bringing about the fall of the Iron Curtain were not amillennial while people who agreed with Carter’s dovish foreign policy premil, nor can Trump’s dovishness be ascribed to a resurgent Christian influence in the Republican party platform that has abandoned the unborn in ways unprecedented in decades and caved on sodomite marriage.
If you wish to respond, that is fine, but I am likely done commenting here. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Bro. Ross, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate your perspective and am thankful for men who think through these issues from a premillennial standpoint as well. Perhaps it would be better, Lord willing, for us to talk about it in person on your next visit, and only if you want too!
On an unrelated note, I met the family you’re working within the San Francisco area, and they recounted several great testimonies of door-to-door evangelism with you. It was a great blessing to hear!
Sure, brother! That would be great.
By the way, I appreciate that this post seeks to think through how premillennialism impacts and should impact how we think about the world.
Thanks.