Armageddon: A Prophecy Awaiting Fulfillment or a Human Project to Manufacture Prophecy?

What if the world reached an unprecedented stage of advancement?

What if humanity became capable of building vast cities, producing enough food almost to eliminate famine, creating interconnected economies, advanced educational systems, means of transportation that make travel between continents commonplace, and sciences and technologies that give human beings capabilities their ancestors could not have imagined?

And what if, amid this immense civilizational advancement, a group remained convinced that history unfolds according to an ancient prophecy, that it is a chosen group, that it has an exceptional role in the final events of history, and that the appearance of the savior is tied to the occurrence of specific events?

And what if this belief extended beyond the bounds of individual religious conviction and became linked to political, economic, military, and technological centers of power with real influence over the course of events?

What if those who hold this view believed that salvation would come only after a great confrontation, and that the final war was not a catastrophe to be prevented, but a predestined event that must occur for the promise of salvation to be fulfilled?

And what if, at the same time, they possessed the technology and resources to protect themselves from the effects of a devastating war, through fortified underground facilities, stockpiles of food, water, and energy, and systems capable of keeping their community alive even after the collapse of the outside world?

Here the most terrifying hypothesis emerges:

What if belief in salvation became a reason to manufacture the catastrophe believed to lead to salvation?

What if the world entered a third world war, not because all parties wanted war, but because some decision-makers saw it as a means of fulfilling a prophecy or hastening the appearance of the savior?

And what if humanity, with all its achievements in science, art, education, economics, and civilization, became incapable of stopping the war because decision-makers believed that its conclusion would not be the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one?

Then a frightening paradox emerges:

The human being who could build cities above ground may build cities underground in preparation for destroying the earth.

And the human being who made the world a single village through communication and transportation may use that same technology to turn the world into a single battlefield.

And the human being who dreamed of improving human lives may reach a point at which the deaths of millions are seen as a necessary price for attaining salvation.

But the deeper question is:

Can a salvation that requires the annihilation of others be divine salvation, or is it a human conception of salvation?

And can prophecy, when it moves from the realm of belief and interpretation into the realm of politics, power, and technology, change from something whose occurrence is awaited into something human beings themselves attempt to manufacture?

And might the gravest danger humanity can face be not merely belief in the end of the world, but possession of sufficient power to attempt to bring it about?

Does This Idea Have Religious Roots?

If we move from the hypothesis to an investigation of its historical roots, we find that some Jewish and Christian texts and traditions contain conceptions of salvation, the savior, return, conflicts preceding the messianic age, and the final war.

But it is essential not to reduce these traditions to a single conception.

First: The Torah and the Hebrew Texts

The Torah itself does not present the concept of “Armageddon” in the form commonly encountered today.

But the Hebrew texts contain themes that later became part of eschatological conceptions, such as covenant, election, land, dispersion, and return.

Relevant texts include Deuteronomy 30, which addresses dispersion followed by return and gathering; Isaiah 11, which speaks of a figure descended from David and a future period of peace; and Ezekiel 37–39, which addresses the return of Israel, followed by an attack by “Gog” upon the land, and then divine intervention and victory.

Ezekiel 38–39 is among the important texts for studying the development of later conceptions of eschatological warfare.

Second: The Talmud

Talmudic literature contains discussions of the days of the Messiah and the signs of their approach, as well as what some texts call the “birth pangs of the Messiah,” meaning the sufferings and tribulations that precede salvation.

Among the important passages is Sanhedrin 97–99, where we find multiple views on the nature of the period preceding the messianic age.

But it is a mistake to treat the Talmud as a book that presents a unified eschatological doctrine; it contains discussions and differing, sometimes contradictory, opinions.

Third: Kabbalah and the Zohar

In some Kabbalistic traditions, particularly those associated with the Zohar, more complex conceptions developed concerning salvation, the Messiah, and the stages preceding the final transformation.

Here salvation is no longer merely a political event or a geographical return; rather, it can be understood as a spiritual and cosmic transformation that reorders the relationship between the divine realm and the material world.

This makes the study of Kabbalah different from the study of the Talmud, and the two should not be merged into a single conception.

Fourth: Where Does “Armageddon” Appear?

Here an important historical point must be corrected: the term “Armageddon” itself is not a term from the Torah, the Talmud, or Kabbalah.

It appears in the Book of Revelation 16:16 within Christian literature, and it was from here that it became associated in Christian tradition with the scene of the final battle.

Thus, positing a direct sequence—Torah ← Talmud ← Kabbalah ← Armageddon—is not historically accurate.

It is more accurate to speak of a long process of interaction and development among Jewish and Christian eschatological conceptions, and then of later readings that brought together multiple elements from these traditions.

From Prophecy to Geopolitics

Here our hypothesis becomes more intriguing: the Old Testament, then election, covenant, land, and return, then later Jewish traditions, then the Messiah, the signs of salvation, and the sufferings preceding salvation, then the Talmud, Midrash, and the development of eschatological conceptions, then Kabbalah, the Zohar, and conceptions of salvation and cosmic transformation, then Christian eschatological traditions, the final battle, and Armageddon, then modern readings, and finally the possibility of prophecy moving from the realm of interpretation into the realm of politics and geopolitics.

Here the question that truly merits investigation emerges:

What happens when an eschatological idea moves from the realm of text and religious interpretation into the realm of politics, military power, and technology?

Where Does the Danger Lie?

The danger lies neither in belief in prophecy as such nor in adherence to a particular religion, but in the possibility that a set of factors might converge in a single political project: an absolute eschatological belief, a sense of election or exceptional status, political authority, military superiority, immense technological capabilities, and the belief that catastrophe is a condition of salvation.

Six principal dangers may then emerge.

First: turning war from a catastrophe into a means of salvation. If a great war is regarded as a necessary stage in the appearance of the savior, preventing it may become less important to those who believe in this conception.

Second: investing political decisions with sanctity. If decision-makers believe that their actions fulfill a divine will or a predestined prophecy, retreat or compromise may become more difficult, because concessions may be viewed as obstructing the divine plan.

Third: the multiplication of danger in the nuclear age. Modern warfare is not merely a war of conventional armies; the existence of nuclear, biological, and cyber weapons, along with advanced military technology, makes the idea of the “final war” far more dangerous than it was in ancient times.

Fourth: the idea of separate survival. What if an elite believed it could protect itself inside fortified facilities while the rest of humanity bore the consequences of war? An exceedingly dangerous conception could then emerge: we will survive, and the world outside will pay the price of transformation.

Fifth: turning human beings into instruments in a prophecy. When millions of human beings are viewed as mere elements in an eschatological scenario, the human being loses value as an individual with a life, dignity, and a right to survive.

Sixth: the prophecy that manufactures itself. This is perhaps the most dangerous point in the entire hypothesis: if it is said that a particular event will occur, and those who wield power then begin to act politically and militarily to make that event occur, prophecy is no longer merely a prediction of the future; it has become a catalyst for manufacturing the future.

Here the question returns to its starting point: what if belief in salvation, belief in election, political authority, military superiority, and modern technology came together in a single hand?

Would Armageddon then become merely a prophecy awaiting fulfillment… or a human project to manufacture prophecy?

A Message to Every Jew Who Still Has a Trace of Humanity in Their Heart

Do not allow any reading of prophecy to make war a destiny you must help fulfill, and do not allow any political or religious discourse to convince you that your salvation requires the destruction of others.

Do not make belief in the savior or anticipation of the end times a justification for the deaths of innocents, and do not make your children and the children of others fuel for a prophecy or a political project.

If salvation is a divine promise, God is capable of fulfilling it without your having to manufacture catastrophe with your own hands.

And do not all become involved in any project that drives the world toward a war whose consequences cannot be controlled. A war that begins with a decision its makers believe to be limited may turn into a global catastrophe that no one can stop.

Remember that human life is not fuel for a prophecy, and that the blood of innocents is not the price of salvation.

People may differ in their interpretation of texts and prophecies, but there is something on which people of conscience must not disagree:

The destruction of millions cannot be a path to true salvation.

Do not allow anyone to use you to fulfill a prophecy as they interpret it, or a political project for which your children and the children of the world pay the price.

Choose to be part of saving humanity, not part of destroying it.

For if salvation comes from God, it will not require the annihilation of human beings. And if it is God who writes the end of history, it is not humanity’s responsibility to manufacture it through war.

The earth is not the property of a group, life is not the privilege of a people, and human blood has neither religion nor nationality.

Save the human being before seeking salvation.

This is a thought experiment that places a single question before humanity:

If human beings possessed the ability to destroy the world, then convinced themselves that destroying it was the path to salvation… who could stop them?