The Apostasy of John Hagee: Jesus was NOT the Messiah!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here's another blog that picked up on my review of Hagee's book:

http://www.yesumulungi.com/Apologetics/Appologs36.htm

So far, I've only seen one person attempt to support Hagee on any of the blogs. His arguments were pretty weak and were quickly refuted by others. You can read his post on pjmillers blog. The pro-Hagee post is number 12. It is refuted in the posts that follow it, particularly post 14.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

To date, I have found only one attempt online to justify John Hagee's book In Defense of Israel. I found it over on pjmiller's blog. It's post 12 by someone named "Ryan." Here it is:

Hagee is not saying that Jesus was not the Messiah.

What Hagee is saying is that the Jews were expecting a political Messiah, a leader who would, like Moses, deliver them from the hands of the Romans at the time.

That is not why Christ came nor is it what Christ offered to do. Prophecy pointed to Jesus as The Messiah, and Jesus fulfilled that prophecy and was the Messiah.

The Jews were wanting Jesus to be the deliverer of the Jewish people from oppression. They were not looking at Him as a spiritual Messiah who would deliver them from their sins. They did not see Jesus as the perfect Blood Sacrifice that He had been sent to earth for.

Everything Hagee says about Christ’s refusal to be the Messiah TO THE JEWS is absolutely true.

Christ was there to be the Messiah for the WHOLE WORLD.

Christ was not sent by God to show signs or to be the earthly Messiah the Jews wanted.

Hagee’s book never rejects Christ as THE MESSIAH. Hagee himself never rejects Christ as THE MESSIAH.

To claim that Christ was the earthly Messiah is to clearly go against Scripture and history as you can see that Christ NEVER did that.

To claim Hagee is an anti-Christ and a heretic is to take the words he has written out of context and to twist and warp the words he has written, just as you have wrongly accused him of doing to Scripture.

Hagee is a firm believer in every word of the Scripture and has preached such his whole life. Clearly you seek to undermine him and his teachings, or else you could see around these foolish accusations that after 40 years of being so close to God, he has had a change of heart.

Ryan's post displays the gross confusion Hagee has wrought in the body of Christ by his equivocation over the word "Messiah." In one sentence, Hagee means "THE MESSIAH" (meaning the true Biblical Messiah) and in another sentence he means nothing but a "political Messiah."

It appears that this confusion was by design, with an aim to deceive. In his effort to exonerate "the Jews" Hagee almost always used the word "Messiah" to mean "a political Messiah" except at one key point - the beginning of his argument! We need only quote his own words in context to expose the deceptive methods of this serpentine teacher of God's Holy Word:

=================================================
From In Defense of Israel, page 132 (formatted as in the original):
=================================================

The Jews Did not Reject Jesus as Messiah

Most evangelicals believe the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and therefore qualify for God's eternal judgment. Replacement theologians have said that "the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent." (6)

Is this statement about the Jewish people biblically true? No! In order to respond to this misstatement about the Jews, several questions must be answered:

=================================================
End quote
=================================================

In the first sentence, Hagee asserts that "Most evangelicals believe the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah." This means that "Messiah" here must be taken in the "evangelical" sense, or the sentence would be false. The same sense is implied in the quote concerning "Jesus Christ whom God sent." I will refer to this "Messiah" as the Biblical Messiah.

Hagee then asserted that "this statement" is false. What statement? The statement that the Jews rejected Jesus as the Biblical Messiah! But what then does Hagee argue throughout the next dozen pages? He argued that the Jews did not reject Jesus as the Political Messiah! This is PURE MADNESS Hagee's argument is logically incoherent. Technically, he based his entire thesis on the logical fallacy known as an equivocation, meaning that he used the word "Messiah" with two different meanings in the same argument. He posed the question: "Did the Jews reject Jesus as the Biblical Messiah?" and then set about to prove that they did not reject Him as a Political Messiah. In layman's terms, Hagee pulled a "bait and switch" on his readers. The gravity of this sin is evident in the fact that he has deceived so many people. Ryan never had a clue that Hagee had pulled the wool over his eyes and robbed him of the Biblical truth of Jesus as the Biblical Messiah. And worse, any Jew reading his book can say "Right on! Jesus was no Messiah!" Hagee's teachings put souls in danger.

Ryan's post touches upon many of Hagee's other logical and Biblical errors, but I see no need to refute them at this time since his primary errors have been conclusively exposed and refuted.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I found another attempt to justify Hagee's book by one "Anne" "Seeker of Truth" in the comment section of Amazon.com (link).

Here are her comments:

Please be careful about what you say until you have found truth!! , October 29, 2007
By "Anne" "seeker of truth"
I saw John Hagee's video promoting his book and it is shocking. I then decided I would buy the book to determine the truth. After reading the book, I was so confused because John Hagee is a solid man of God! I had to get to the bottom of the truth.

Here is what a pastor of Cornerstone Church told me on behalf of what John Hagee believes.

1. John Hagee believes that Jesus did not come to be the Messiah JUST to the Jews, but to the whole world.

2. John Hagee firmly believes that Jews must believe in Christ Jesus to be saved.

I found that John Hagee is so bent on refuting replacement theology that he was not clear in what he was trying to say in this book. I feel John Hagee could have done a better job in explaining what he meant. That is why I gave 4 stars instead of 5.

This book is ABSOLUTELY not as some have said "anti-christ". John Hagee is trying to show that Jesus is the saving Christ to all people, including the Jews not JUST the jews.

What John Hagee is saying is that the Jews were looking for the Messiah to be a person that would literally save them from the Roman empire just as Moses saved them from Egypt and that Jesus was telling the Jews that he was not going to be the messiah from Rome because he is the savior of the world. If you read this book, knowing the statements from Hagee's church itself, you will see what the truth is in what he is saying.

The book is absolutely right on about supporting Israel and the Jews. That is our job as Christians.

And here is my response:

There are two biblical definitions of "antichrist." The one that applies to John Hagee is found in 1 John 2:22:

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ [Messiah]? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

On the mere face of it, Hagee's statement that "Jesus rejected to the last detail the role of Messiah in word or deed" (p. 144) qualifies him as antichrist. But let us not rush into judgment. Perhaps he was misunderstood. Perhaps we should listen to his students who attempt to correct their teacher by putting words in his mouth, saying that by "Messiah" Hagee was not talking about the Biblical role of Messiah fulfilled by Jesus, but only "a political Messiah" that would free them from Rome. Of course, if that is true it only adds to the proof that Hagee is a dangerously incompetent Bible teacher, for the Bible prophesies nothing of any "political Messiah" that would come just to save the Jews from the Romans. And no Bible teacher possessing the most elementary knowledge of Christ would ever deny that He was Messiah under any circumstances, because the declaration that Jesus is Messiah is part of the fundamental definition of the Christian faith. The first century Jewish martyrs who sacrificed their lives for the proclamation that Jesus is Messiah cry out from their graves against the antichrist heresy of John Hagee. But be that as it may, let us suppose that Hagee's students are correct, and all he really meant by "Messiah to the Jews" was "a political Messiah" that would smash Rome. Does this solve the problem of Hagee's apparent heresy?

The answer is easy to find. Hagee's repeated and emphatic denials of Jesus as Messiah were part of a twelve page segment of his book in which he was attempting to prove a statement made on page 132. Here are the exact words of John Hagee stated in full between the "====" lines:

=================================================
The Jews Did not Reject Jesus as Messiah

Most evangelicals believe the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and therefore qualify for God's eternal judgment. Replacement theologians have said that "the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent." (6)

Is this statement about the Jewish people biblically true? No! In order to respond to this misstatement about the Jews, several questions must be answered:
=================================================

Hagee's point was to prove that "the Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah." But what meaning of Messiah did he intend here? Well, his first sentence says that "most EVANGELICALS believe the Jews rejected Jesus as MESSIAH" so he must be using the word "Messiah" in the "evangelical" sense, or his statement would be false. Likewise, his reference to "Jesus Christ whom God sent" must also be understood in the "evangelical" sense of Jesus Christ the True Messiah sent by God to save us from our sins. But what sense does Hagee then use THROUGHOUT the rest of his argument? He argues that the Jews can not be "blamed" for rejecting Jesus as the Biblical Saviour Messiah because He did not come to be a "political Messiah" that would smash Rome!

Do you get it? THIS IS MADNESS! RANK INSANITY. Hagee pulled a classic "bait and switch" and fooled a multitude, including yourself! Besides being wickedly deceptive and moronically incoherent, his argument is also logically fallacious! The fallacy is called "equivocation." It happens when a person changes the definition in the middle of the argument. There is no excuse for this kind of deception coming from the pulpit of "America's Pastor" as he likes to have himself called. But the real mystery is how did this obvious sham argument get past the editors? Indeed, how did it get past you?

Now as for Hagee's teachings about Jews and salvation, it is not at all clear that he believes that the Jews must believe in Christ to be saved. On the contrary, he teaches that the Old Covenant is still valid and ethnic Israel "still has a covenant with God" through the Torah. (p. 167). He then denies that the New Covenant "replaced" the Old Covenant. He appears to believe the dual covenant heresy that says the Jews can get to God through Torah. Again, he has exposed himself as a theological hack. He is a dangerously incompetent Bible teacher. That's all there is to it.

[gilgal]

Thing about these big shots whether in Religious or Politicians... their statements always make it look so blurry that you can't understand which side they're on.

But I ask, "How can John Hagee side with Israel against Lebanon when Lebanon is more tolerant towards Christians?"

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I found this John Hagee interview in the archives of the Houston Chronicle. Here is the header information:

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: SAT 04/30/1988
Section: Religion
Page: 1
Edition: 2 STAR

San Antonio fundamentalist battles anti-Semitism

By JULIA DUIN, Houston Chronicle Religion Writer
Staff

And here is a snippet of the article. Read it and weap for the untold thousands that have been misled by the apostasy of John Hagee:

In fact, trying to convert Jews is a "waste of time," he said. "The Jewish person who has his roots in Judaism is not going to convert to Christianity. There is no form of Christian evangelism that has failed so miserably as evangelizing the Jewish people. They (already) have a faith structure."

Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity, he says.

"The Jewish people have a relationship to God through the law of God as given through Moses," Hagee said. "I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption.

"The law of Moses is sufficient enough to bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater revelation. And God has not," said Hagee, giving his interpretation of Romans 11:25. "Paul abandoned the idea (of Jews knowing Christ). In the book of Romans, he said, `I am now going to go to the Gentiles from this time forward.' Judaism doesn't need Christianity to explain its existence. But Christianity has to have Judaism to explain its existence."

Consider this: If one word of this article were false and Hagee were an orthodox Christian, he would be compelled to have a clear refutation on his website. He does not. So we must assume he still holds to these heretical beliefs. Furthermore, he continues in his assertion that the Old Covenant is still valid, though it looks like he is doing his best to decieve people by hiding his true dual covenant beliefs since that would cause all orthodox Christians to reject him.

I truly believe that one of the primary reasons Hagee's teachings are so confused is because he is trying to hide his true beliefs. Jesus was NOT the Messiah "to the Jews" but he was the Messiah to everyone else? But since he wasn't the Messiah "to the Jews" they can't be "blamed" for not believing in Him?

Here are a couple relevent links:

The Other Gospel of John Hagee

To the Jew First (A Biblical Analysis of the "Two Covenant" Theory of the Atonement)


Richard

[gilgal]

This goes back to Galatians and Hebrews.

Paul said in Galatians that if by circumcision comes salvation then Christ died for nothing.

Those things, the law and circumcision never guaranteed us salvation. The Law points our sinful nature and God's standard. Jesus came to wash us from the guilt of breaking the law.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

This goes back to Galatians and Hebrews.

Paul said in Galatians that if by circumcision comes salvation then Christ died for nothing.

Those things, the law and circumcision never guaranteed us salvation. The Law points our sinful nature and God's standard. Jesus came to wash us from the guilt of breaking the law.

Excellent points. That's why this error is so significant. The Bible calls it ANATHEMA.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here are a couple more sites that have picked up on my review:


http://www.fulfilledprophecy.com/bb/...4b19004f797ae8

http://www.forgottenword.org/hagee.html

The word is getting out. Most supporters of Hagee say things like "I am shocked! Horrified!" but then go on to suggest what Hagee "really meant" was only "a political Messiah." It shows the sad sad condition of the current evangelical mind. No genuine Christian would EVER under any circumstances deny that Jesus is the Messiah. Read Hagee's words again:

* If God intended for Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, why didn't he authorize Jesus to use supernatural signs to prove he was God's Messiah, just as Moses had done? (p. 137)

* Jesus refused to produce a sign ... because it was not the Father's will, nor his, to be Messiah. (p 138)

* If Jesus wanted to be Messiah, why did he repeatedly tell his disciples and followers to "tell no one" about his supernatural accomplishments? (p. 139)

* The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews. (p. 140)
They wanted him to be their Messiah, but he flatly refused. (p. 141)

* He refused to be their Messiah, choosing instead to be the Savior of the world (p. 143)
* Jesus rejected to the last detail the role of Messiah in word or deed. (p. 145)

In response to Hagee's words I declare absolutely and unequivocally that ...

the BLOOD of
the first century Jewish martyrs

who sacrificed their lives for the proclamation that

Jesus is Messiah

cries out against the apostate antichrist
heresy of John Hagee!

And that's all there is to it.

Richard

[gilgal]

* If God intended for Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, why didn't he authorize Jesus to use supernatural signs to prove he was God's Messiah, just as Moses had done? (p. 137)

Arnold Fruchtenbaum did an excellent study on Jesus' Messiah-ship when he came to Montreal years ago.

A leper is checked by the priest ( Leviticus 13 14 ). If he's truly leprous the priest would tear his clothes and send him out of town away from the people.
And if a leper is cleansed from his leprousy he would need to see a priest again to be declared as clean.

Historical record shows no one is cleansed of leprousy except for Myriam before the writing of the law ( Numbers 12? ) and Naaman the Syrian ( Gentile 2 kings 5 ) who wasn't under the law.

So that showed that if there any lepers cleansed it would be through the Messiah. When Jesus began his ministry he found a leper ( Luke 5 ). For the first time the leper was physically touched my Jesus as an act of love. He was cleansed and sent to the priest. So once the priest discovered that a leper was cleansed ( behind the scenes because this wasn't mentioned in the gospels but commanded by God in the law of the leper in Leviticus 13-14 ) he asked who cleansed you?

When the priest hears Jesus the Messiah the Jews send a delegation as mentioned later on when Jesus was teaching in a house. As another Messianic sign, they bring a paralytic while he was teaching. What was the first answer of Jesus? Your sins are forgiven. The rabbis and inspectors in the audience were quiet ( because their first reactions has to be that they only watch to see if he's the Messiah or not. Questions should come in the future ).

But seeing that he fulfilled a Messianic act, to forgive sins, they were reasoning in their hearts, "Only God could forgive sins". Here's another Messianic sign, that Jesus can read people's hearts.

But the last sign of the day did convince them, when he commanded the paralytic to stand up, take his bed and go home. At that point they praised God.

But later on there were opportunities where Scribes and Pharisees would follow Jesus and his disciples and question what they said or did such walking through the field ( Matthew 15 ) and eating with dirty hands which in their oral tradition ( which was later penned down as the Mishnah, which turns out to be one of the books of the Talmud ). Their question was why did Jesus not obey the elders' tradition? Jesus replied that by obeying their tradition they break God's commandments ( as Peter said in Acts 4, "We ought to obey God rather than men").

So from that point they rejected his Messiahship as mentioned in Matthew 12, that he cast out devils by Beelzebub. And from that point Jesus stop ministering publicly and commanded those whom he healed not to tell others about it until he had risen from the dead.

[pjmiller]

Richard, I wanted to say I am OVERJOYED! that so many websites & boards are picking up on your review of this book...Praise God!


The word is getting out. As you pointed out there are still those who are defending him, not believing he meant what he said. A few of those folks have been questioning the book promo video--claming it was 'fixed' or tampered with, because the words being said (by Hagee) did not seem to match up with his mouth/movements.

Today, i found where another person on youtube posted this promo again...and there can be no doubt of what he said. I wanted to pass the link on to the video, for anyone who doubted the first one.


Hagee Hersey

ps- hope my link was posted correctly. I'm not use to the tools here yet!