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:
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."Originally Posted by Ryan on pjmillers blog
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:
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.