In 1 Samuel 16, God tells His people to go and fight against nations that are against Him. In other words, if you want to get into God’s presence, you need to be victorious over nations that are against Him. In other words, if you want to see victory, you need to be in a position to defeat those nations that God wants you to defeat. So this is what global dominion means.
Some may think that this is too broad and that it doesn’t make sense to use the word “worldwide” to describe something as small as a city or as large as the Earth. This is one of the reasons that I prefer to define “worldwide” as “all nations” and “worldwide protests”. This way, the adjective is much more definite and the meaning much more clear.
What exactly is meant by the phrase “worldwide struggle”? This can be described as a variety of struggles happening all over the world which is causing tension between nations. Think about it this way – there is only one world leader, which have ultimate authority over the entire planet, and everyone else is merely a regional leader. Is that not a true statement? Does the term “worldwide leader” even make sense when we are talking about individuals?
Let’s look at the power structure of the United States, for instance. There are indeed a number of national leaders, but they are not one world leader. That is to say that there are regional leaders, but they do not have absolute power over the total globe. That’s not meant to be an insult. It is simply a reality.
The power structure of the world government consists of multi-national organizations. Some are regional, like regional heads for instance, but they are not World War I or World War II leaders. They are simply regional power players. In fact, some have never even set foot on the ground of the planet. These include such nations as North Korea, Venezuela, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, and others. Those are just some of the most recent examples.
So the question is not whether the phrase “worldwide struggle” has no place in our political language. Of course it does. But it would be far better to use the term “worldwide political power” which more accurately denotes the power structures of the actual world leaders. That way, we can eliminate the “worldwide” prefix and get down to the business of world leadership. After all, the whole point of politics is to deal with power.