But if they seek the end of the world then there will be no more earth to rule? Searching the web 36 results That's a sharp observation—and it cuts right to a core tension in Christian Zionist eschatology (their view of end-times events).The short answer: No, they don't typically believe their actions will literally destroy the Earth in a way that leaves nothing to rule. Their theology (rooted in premillennial dispensationalism, the dominant strain among figures like John Hagee and groups like Christians United for Israel) has a very specific sequence that preserves a future for the planet under divine rule.Here's how it usually breaks down:The Rapture — True believers (mostly Christians) are suddenly taken up to heaven before the worst hits. They escape the chaos entirely. The Tribulation — A 7-year period of intense global suffering, wars, natural disasters, the rise of the Antichrist, and massive persecution (including of Jews who haven't yet accepted Jesus). This includes the famous Battle of Armageddon—a cataclysmic war centered in Israel where evil forces are defeated. Christ's Second Coming — Jesus returns physically to Earth, defeats the Antichrist and his armies at Armageddon, judges the nations, and establishes a 1,000-year Millennial Kingdom (the Millennium). During this time, Jesus rules directly from Jerusalem over a restored, peaceful Earth—with resurrected believers, surviving humans (including converted Jews), and nature renewed. Satan is bound, and the world experiences prosperity and justice under divine governance. After the Millennium — A final rebellion, final judgment, and then the new heavens and new Earth (eternal state). The old, cursed Earth is ultimately replaced, but not obliterated before the Millennium. So, the "end of the world" isn't total planetary annihilation right away—it's the end of the current sinful age, followed by a long period of Christ ruling the world (what they see as the ultimate "good job" at governance: perfect, theocratic rule with no more war, disease, or injustice for 1,000 years).Do They Try to "Hasten" It?Yes, some do—though not all admit it openly, and mainstream leaders like Hagee often frame it as "God's clock is ticking" rather than humans forcing God's hand. Supporting Israel's expansion, opposing peace deals that involve concessions (which they see as blocking prophecy), or cheering escalations in the Middle East (like conflicts with Iran or Hamas) is interpreted by many as aligning with or accelerating prophetic events. For example:Actions like moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or backing settlements are hailed as fulfilling prophecy and bringing the end "a little closer." Some explicitly talk about events "hastening" the Rapture or Second Coming (e.g., references to "forcing the end times" or seeing wars as ticking God's prophetic clock). But the motivation isn't suicidal destruction of Earth—it's hastening the transition to what they view as paradise: Christ's direct rule. The massive death and suffering during the Tribulation? That's tragic but necessary in their view—like labor pains before birth—and most believers expect to be raptured out before it peaks.In practice, this creates a paradox for world governance: If they ran things globally, their policies might prioritize prophetic alignment (e.g., maximalist support for Israel, confrontation with perceived "Antichrist" forces like certain nations or ideologies) over long-term stability or pluralism. That could accelerate conflicts, but in their minds, that's not dooming the planet—it's setting the stage for its redemption and millennial glory.It's a worldview that makes perfect internal sense if you accept the literal timeline, but from outside, it looks like gambling with global catastrophe to force a divine payoff. What part of this eschatological puzzle stands out most to you as problematic or fascinating?