What is a nation’s greatest test? Is it the bitter enemy who seeks its destruction, or is it the close friend – the “brother” – who offers it support and treasures at the expense of its soul?
While our people’s history is full of conflicts with declared foes, the foundational story of Avraham and Lot teaches us that the deepest and most perilous challenge comes not from the hater but from the “rival” – the one who seems to resemble us, who walks with us, yet undermines the very essence of our existence.
Today, the people of Israel are faced with an alliance of unprecedented power.
Millions of Evangelical Christians – calling themselves “Zionists” – shower the State of Israel with immense political support, billions in donations, and a warm embrace unmatched in the international arena.
These “friends” present themselves to us as our shield in a hostile world. But could it be that behind this embrace lies the ancient pattern of Lot? Is this a brotherhood of allies, or are we witnessing a modern version of the rival, who uses our story to advance his own agenda?
The Biblical Blueprint: A Test of Morals and Motives
The drama between Avraham and Lot begins after they accumulate vast wealth. It is precisely this abundance, a symbol of blessing, that becomes the catalyst for their separation.
The conflict erupts between their shepherds, but its root is not merely economic; it’s moral and theological.
Lot’s shepherds allow their flocks to graze in foreign fields, the lands of the Canaanites and Perizzites, justifying it with a clever argument: the Creator promised the land to Avraham, and Lot is his heir. Therefore, the land is already theirs, and this is not theft.
This is the turning point.
Lot’s camp does not merely sin by stealing. It uses a Divine promise to justify the sin. It co-opts Avraham’s narrative to serve its own greed.
Avraham, by contrast, understands that a Divine promise is not a license for injustice. He proposes that they part ways and grants Lot the first choice of land—an act of magnanimity that reveals his spiritual and moral confidence.
Lot’s choice, meanwhile, exposes his inner world.
He lifts his eyes and sees the fertile Jordan plain, “like the garden of HaShem,” and selects it based on a purely materialist calculation. He consciously ignores the Torah’s warning: “Now the men of S’dom were wicked and were sinning greatly against HaShem.”
Material prosperity is more important to him than the moral environment. Only after this separation does the Creator reveal Himself to Avraham again and renew His promise.
The presence of Lot, the rival, had been a spiritual barrier. Parting ways was actually a prerequisite for the mission to continue.
The Modern Echo: An Alliance with an Expiration Date
The Christian Zionist movement offers Israel support that feels difficult to refuse. It operates an unparalleled political lobby in Washington, donates to Jewish nationalist causes, and works to defend Israel on the American political stage.
But what’s the real motive behind this generosity?
The answer lies in their eschatological theology—their doctrine of the End of Days. For the Christians, the return of the Jewish people to our land and the establishment of the State of Israel are not ends in themselves, but necessary stages in a Christian cosmic drama.
The existence of a sovereign Israel is a precondition for the “second coming” of their man-god, an apocalyptic war, and their Christian interpretation of redemption.
And herein lies the catch.
According to that same theology, just before the final redemption, the Jewish people will face a choice: accept Jesus and convert, or face destruction.
In other words, the support for Israel’s material survival is intended to lead us to a final juncture where our unique spiritual and national sovereignty is undermined.
These Christians support the Jewish story, but only so that it can reach their conclusion—an ending in which the Jews are subsumed into the Christian narrative.
The Unavoidable Parallel: The Rival Returns
The parallel to Lot’s pattern is chilling, as summarized in the table below.
| Characteristic | Lot (The Biblical Rival) | Christian Zionism (The Modern Rival) |
| Core Motivation | Material Wealth and Personal Prosperity. Lot’s primary driver was the pursuit of immediate, tangible gain. He chose the fertile Jordan plain because it looked “like the garden of HaShem,” focusing entirely on its economic potential for making him and his household wealthy. His motivation was self-serving and materialistic. | Fulfillment of a Self-Serving Eschatological Prophecy. The movement’s core motivation is to hasten the “second coming” of Jesus. Their support for Israel is utilitarian – a necessary step to advance their own end-times theological narrative, in which a sovereign Jewish state is a prerequisite for Christian redemption. |
| Claim to the Land | Indirect and Utilitarian, via Inheritance. Lot’s shepherds justified grazing on the land of others by making a premature claim based on inheritance (“Lot is his heir”). They co-opted the promise made to Avraham to serve their immediate, practical needs – asserting a right that wasn’t there’s. | Indirect and Theological, via Prophetic Necessity. They claim a role in Israel’s destiny not by right, but by asserting themselves as indispensable actors in a prophetic plan. Their support is framed as essential to fulfilling Biblical prophecy, thereby inserting themselves into the narrative of the land’s destiny. |
| Moral Justification | Justifies Unethical Actions with a Future Claim. Lot’s camp used a theological argument – that the land would one day belong to them – to rationalize a present moral transgression (theft). This demonstrates a conditional, self-serving morality in which Divine promises are twisted to excuse unethical behavior. | Justifies Political Positions with a Theological Mandate. Support for Israel is often framed as a Divine command, which can lead to unconditional backing of political actions while overlooking ethical complexities. Actions are seen as “prophetic” and therefore righteous, bypassing nuanced moral debate. |
| Relationship to Avraham / the Jewish People | Familial Closeness, Spiritual Divergence. Lot was Avraham’s nephew, walking alongside him physically but not spiritually. He represents the “rival” that shares a common origin but ultimately chooses a fundamentally different path, driven by divergent values and goals, leading to a necessary separation. | Professed Friendship, Theological Divergence. The movement professes love and friendship but operates from a supersessionist framework. It is a theological rival that supports the Jewish people’s physical survival only to see the Jewish narrative ultimately subsumed into its own through mass conversion at the end of days. |
| Ultimate Goal | Establishing a Personal Domain of Prosperity. Lot’s ultimate aim was to carve out his own sphere of influence and wealth in S’dom. His goal was entirely separate from Avraham’s spiritual and national mission; it was personal, local, and materialistic. | Establishing a Global Messianic Kingdom under Jesus. The ultimate vision is a world under Christian dominion. This requires the Jewish people to fulfill their prophetic role and then convert, effectively ending the independent existence of the Israel’s unique covenant and national identity as it is currently known. |
| Vision for the Land | Horizontal and Materialistic. Lot’s vision was limited to the here and now. He saw the land for its immediate agricultural and economic potential – a resource to be exploited for personal gain. His perspective was entirely of this world. | Eschatological and Instrumental. Their vision for the land is vertical and future-oriented. They see it not as an end in itself, but as a Divine stage for the final act of their own religious drama. The land and its people are key props in a story that is ultimately not about us. |
Lot was not an enemy. He was a kinsman. That’s why he was such a great challenge.
Christian Zionism doesn’t present itself as an enemy in the classic sense; it offers friendship and love. But it is a conditional love, an alliance with an expiration date. It is the challenge of the rival in its most potent form.
Avraham’s test was not only to believe in and serve the Creator but also to identify those who walked with him but not on his path, and to understand when separation was a spiritual necessity.
The question facing us today is whether we, like our forefather Avraham, will have the wisdom to look beyond the fertile “Jordan plain” of political support and recognize the spiritual price of an alliance with those who see us as a tool for achieving their real goals.
After reading what is wrote, I agree about the agenda that the Christians have , in end of days….they are friends but have an agenda…its been this way always. ITs what we Noahides do and behave in our area where we live may make a difference to some who are searching for truth….Standing for a moral stand in my country Canada is sometimes a hard call…But some how it can be taught the path of Abraham , and the nations that follow Hashem , will teach it to their children, as the Shema says. WE need to stay strong,,,,helping others,,,doing what Hashem has given us to do,,,as we all have a purpose, in life.,, Im my opinion it will take a while yet to for things to change, And may Meshciah come in my life time,,,,standing tall…Hashem is King
Your negative analysis of Evangelicals is absolutely correct !
May I add only one point: Christianity is already dead in Europe and in historically short time will die in countryside USA too; all demographic and statistic evidence does signal such a trend. Therefore it makes little sense for Israel to strive for the sympathy and support of this corpse.