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

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there okmedia!

Thanks for pursuing this with me! I really appreciate it. It is truly helpful to us all.

So you are saying that Jesus was wrong when he said he spoke in parables so that they would not believe in him?

Who are the "they" in your sentence? You falsely suggest they are the faithful Jews who otherwise would have delighted in the truth of Jesus as Messiah if only He had not blinded them from seeing it. This is typical of Hagee's false teaching. Christ was not speaking in parables to keep faithful Jews from believing in Him as Messiah. On the contrary, Christ quoted Isaiah against them as a condemnation of their unbelief, just like He called the Jews who rejected Him as Messiah "sons of the devil":

John 8:41-47 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?

According to Christ and the Bible, the Jews who rejected Him did so because they rejected the Truth. The final refutation of Hagee's insane assertion that Christ never claimed to be Messiah is found in John 10:

John 10:24-31 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the >>>MESSIAH<<<, tell us plainly. 25 Jesus answered them, >>>I TOLD YOU<<<, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. 26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 &#182; Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Let me repeat this in a way that even the deaf and blind should be able to hear and see:

The Jews said "IF THOU BE THE >>>MESSIAH<<< TELL US PLAINLY."

Jesus answered and said ">>> I TOLD YOU<<< and ye believed not!


What will it TAKE to get Hagee's followers to read the Bible? Christ EXPLICITLY claimed to be the Messiah! And contra Hagee's LIES, He practically SHOUTED it to the JEWS!!! And He claimed that His "works" proved it. And what "works" was He speaking about? He was talking about his MIRACULOUS SIGNS such as turning water to wine, healing the blind, and raising the dead. John Hagee denied EVERYTHING about the miraculous signs that Christ did as proof that He was indeed the Messiah when he wrote:

Jesus refused to produce a sign for the national leadership of Israel in an attempt to prove that he was the Messiah because it was not the Father's will, nor his, to be the Messiah.

Do you see that? Hagee says Jesus did not come to BE the Messiah. Of course, I know what you will think. You will think that "Messiah" here means a "political ruler", right? Where do you find that in the BIBLE? Anywhere? No! The New Testament says NOTHING about "political Messiah to the Jews" as opposed to the true Messiah which is Jesus. Hagee's entire teaching is based on an utterly, totally, ridiculously false and unbiblical concept of the Messiah.

John wrote his gospel AFTER Jesus was crucified and resurrected. That was part of the plan, it was necessary for the work of the cross to be completed, and if Jesus had been accepted as Messiah BEFORE that, then he would have become spiritual ruler of Israel. No cross, no resurrection. GET THE POINT?

Sure, I "GET THE POINT." But "THE POINT" is false and unwarranted. You have uncritically received the popular false teaching that says the Jews as a nation had to reject Christ as Messiah in order for the cross and resurrection to happen. That idea has no basis in fact because you do not know that Jesus would not have been crucified by the Romans regardless of how many Jews accepted Him as Messiah. The whole nation could have accepted Him except a few "religoius rogues" in leadership who still could have succeeded in getting Him crucified just as God prophesied. Indeed, this is the scenario that Hagee asserts in his book on page 131:

The bibilcal text is perfectly clear. Jesus was crucified by Rome as a political insurrectionist who was considered too dangerous to live. He was a threat to Herod's grip on Palestine and a threat to the high priest. The plot among Herod's inner circle produce the Roman crucifixion of Jesus Christ at Calvary. It had nothing to do with the Jewish people as a civilization.

He calls the crucifixion the "Calvary Plot" and attributes it entirely to "a miniscule handful" of "religious rogues" that were "led by the high priest" (p. 129). So there it is. According to Hagee, "the Jews" did not have to "reject" Christ in order for the Gospel plan to be fulfilled. This means that your attempt to justify Hagee's teachings directly contradicts Hagee's teachings, which is exactly what we all should expect since Hagee's teachings as a whole are logically incoherent. GET THE POINT?

We also must recall that thousands of "the Jews" did accept Jesus as the Messiah BEFORE he was crucified.

Thanks again for presenting these attempts to justify Hagee's errors. They are very useful as a means of demonstrating the true Biblical doctrines (because of their stark contrast).

Richard

[okmedia]

Not having read the book, I cannot defend everything Hagee said. All I know is that the OT and Jesus said he had to be rejected, (which is why he spoke so harshly to the religious leaders):

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected by this generation.


Sure Jesus admitted he was the Messiah, even the Son of God, but not during his entire time of preaching; probably close to the end, which is why they became angry and killed him, but he could have done it differently, so that he was accepted like you said, but like the Bible says, he had to be rejected so that he could be crucified.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Not having read the book, I cannot defend everything Hagee said. All I know is that the OT and Jesus said he had to be rejected, (which is why he spoke so harshly to the religious leaders):

Mat 21:42 Jesus saith to them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes?

Mar 8:31 And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things, and be rejected by this generation.

Sure Jesus admitted he was the Messiah, even the Son of God, but not during his entire time of preaching; probably close to the end, which is why they became angry and killed him, but he could have done it differently, so that he was accepted like you said, but like the Bible says, he had to be rejected so that he could be crucified.

No problem there! We all know that Christ was rejected by the Jews. And that the Bible prophesied that He would be rejected. And that only a remnant of the Jews would be saved. But it is wrong to say that God had to "make them" reject Jesus by some supernatural blindness. They rejected Him because of their sin, not because God made them do it.

And none of this justifies Hagee's denial that Christ came to be Messiah, correct?

So do you still assert that I have "twisted" Hagee's words?

Richard

[okmedia]

Well, according to Paul, the Jews were given partial blindness until the full number of the Gentiles will come in.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Well, according to Paul, the Jews were given partial blindness until the full number of the Gentiles will come in.

Well, the meaning of that verse depends strongly upon the exegesis of whole section of Romans 9-11 which is a large and difficult task, and no matter what conclusions are derived, they will certainly be highly controversial. That verse therefore does not function well as a "proof text."

So do you still assert that I have "twisted" the words of John Hagee?

Richard

[okmedia]

You stated:

His denial of Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) cannot be overlooked . . . Since Jesus did not come to do this, He was "not the Messiah" by Hagee's heretical definition.

Hagee was wrong in stating that the Jews did not reject Jesus, as the Bible clearly states they did, but it was God's will for that to happen, so they cannot be blamed.

But you are claiming that Hagee was saying that Jesus was not the Messiah, but in fact he was saying that Jesus did not come to BE their Messiah, to be accepted by them.

Do I have that right? Not having read the book, but I can read what you said, and I doubt very seriously that he said that Jesus was and is not the Messiah.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You stated:

His denial of Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) cannot be overlooked . . . Since Jesus did not come to do this, He was "not the Messiah" by Hagee's heretical definition.

Hagee was wrong in stating that the Jews did not reject Jesus, as the Bible clearly states they did, but it was God's will for that to happen, so they cannot be blamed.

But you are claiming that Hagee was saying that Jesus was not the Messiah, but in fact he was saying that Jesus did not come to BE their Messiah, to be accepted by them.

Do I have that right? Not having read the book, but I can read what you said, and I doubt very seriously that he said that Jesus was and is not the Messiah.

I'm a little confused by your question. Are you saying that Hagee is correct, and that "Jesus did not come to BE their Messiah?" If that's what you believe, then how do you explain Jesus SHOUTING to them that HE IS THEIR MESSIAH? Here, let me tell you again what the Holy Bible declares in John 10:

The Jews said "IF THOU BE THE >>>MESSIAH<<< TELL US PLAINLY."

Jesus answered and said ">>> I TOLD YOU<<< and ye believed not!

Do you understand those words? Do they say anything like "Jesus refused to be Messiah to the Jews?" Hagee's idea of the "messiah" has absolutely nothing to do with the Messiah proclaimed in the New Testament! N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

Now I understand why you are confused about Hagee's teachings. It really does seem to be lunacy to spend forty years preaching Jesus as the Jewish Messiah and then write a book that denies Jesus came to be Messiah of the Jews. But you must understand that the quotes I gave are accurate and were not taken out of context. You can check them out yourself. Don't buy the book, just go to a bookstore and scan through to confirm the quotes and check the context. Hagee wrote the following:

• 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)

This is why you are confused. Hagee's teachings are totally incoherent. He equivocates over the word "Messiah". I explained this in Post 22. Did you read it? Here it is again:

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.

The essential point to understand is that NO CHRISTIAN would ever DENY that Jesus is Messiah under any circumstances because that is one of the statements that defines the Christian Faith. But if a teacher really felt the need to say "Jesus refused to be Messiah" he would compelled, if he had any semblence of a Christian conscience at all, to carefully define what he meant and why he was saying things that seem to be apostate. To fail to be clear on this matter could stumble untold thousands of simple souls! But Hagee did none of that. He wrote his book, and as far as I know, he still has not bothered to make any statements to anybody about what he "really" meant, and why his words should not be understood as a denial of Jesus as the Christ.

Finally, I would like to address a point concerning God's will and human responsibility. You say that the Jews "can not be blamed" because "it was God's will for that to happen." The fact that something is "God's will" does not exonerate the wicked people who commit the sin. This is stated explicitly in Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" It was God's will that Christ be crucified, but the people who did it were guilty of murder and rightly declared to be "wicked" in the same verse that declares they fulfilled "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." I explained this is some detail in my previous post. The Jews that rejected Jesus did so because they rejected the Truth. Jesus quoted Isaiah as a judgment on them for their unbelief. He said the Jews who rejected Him did so because they were sons of the devil. How do you interpret these verses? Why didn't you respond to my answer?

Thanks again for your diligence ok media! It is very much appreciated.

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I received this email yesterday from Rev. Barbara Di Gilio who runs Mayim Hayim Ministries which "seeks to educate, and to bring first century light to both, the Jewish person and the non-Jewish person alike. We want to equip all with the richness of the Heritage of Messiah Yeshua (Jesus Christ), which is totally Hebraic."

===============================================
Hi Richard,

This is Rev. Barbara Di Gilio from Mayim Hayim Ministries writing you, it been a long time since we have spoken. You may remember, you wrote to me when you first put up your web site? Anyway, a few weeks ago I wrote this Book Review about pastor John Hagee's new book. I would like your permission to use your article on my web site as well, your article is just what I wrote about in my email?

A Mayim Hayim Book Review: IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL by Pastor John Hagee

Dear Haverim,

I must tell you my friends; I have never been so upset with anyone who has written a book, one who claims he loves the Jewish people. From page 1 up pages 132, I have no problem with IN DEFENSE OF ISRAEL, however, from page 132 to the top of 145, I take great issue with pastor Hagee’ understanding of Hebraic things. His perspective is wacky and off balanced, and he sets Messianic Judaism at odds with the plain reading of the Scriptures. I will give you only one instant from his book, but there are many. In his chapter: 'Answering Christian Critics,' on page 142 & the top of 143, pastor Hagee says, and I have put it all in brackets for you here:

[Two Disciples on the Emmaus Road

The two disciples on the road to Emmaus (located seven miles outside Jerusalem) wanted Jesus to be the Messiah. Luke mentions one of them by name: Cleopas, the father of James the Less. The other disciple walking on the road with him may have been his wife, Mary. As they walked, Jesus himself joined them, but they did not recognize him.

He asked them, 'What are you discussing together as you walk along?'

... One of them, named Cleopas asked him, 'Are you only a visitor to Jerusalem and do not know the things that have happened there in these days?

'What things?' he asked.

'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.'

—Luke 24:17—21, NIV, emphasis added

The two disciples on the road to Emmaus had not rejected Jesus as Messiah; their hopes were dashed! It was not until Jesus entered their house for fellowship, as it was late in the evening, that they recognized him. When he sat at their table, lifting his hands to bless and break the bread, they saw the scars on his hands and recognized Jesus. He instantly disappeared (Luke 24:30—35). He refused to be their Messiah, choosing instead to bet he Savior of the world.]

Here pastor Hagee only give you part of the story told by Luke. He left out Jesus’ words that are in red in my bible. Let’s look at the whole story in context, and really see what Jesus said.

Luke 24:13-35
13 And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.
14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.
15 And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them.
16 But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.
17 And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?
18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days?
19 And he said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people:
20 And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
22 Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
23 And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he was alive.
24 And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ (Messiah) to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though he would have gone further.
29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with them.
30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,
34 Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.
35 And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.

Verse 26 in the New Living Translation (NLT) it reads this way:

'Wasn't it clearly predicted by the prophets that the Messiah would have to suffer all these things before entering his time of glory?"

In David Stern’ 'The Jewish New Testament,' verse 26 reads:

'Didn’t the Messiah have to die like this before entering his glory?'

The red emphasis added is by me, David Stern does not have a red letter edition, nevertheless you can see Jesus though of Himself as the Messiah of Israel, the Messiah the prophets spoke of.

Clearly, pastor Hagee does not understand Jesus’ (Yeshua’) use of Hebraisms in speaking of Himself in the Scriptures, if he did, he could never have put forth this point of view in his book.


I love pastor John Hagee, but I cannot recommend this book. My fear is that people who are not 'taught' or well versed in the Scriptures will believe that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah of Israel, which is dead wrong, for He did so over and over again to them.

I have neither the time nor the want-to, to write a paper with a "full rebuttal" on this chapter in the book, but maybe one of the rabbis or scholars who read MHM Book Reviews will do just that. If you do, I will post it. What I will however recommend is my brother Dwight A. Pryor’ DVD set: 'Behold The Man – Discovering our Hebrew Lord, the Historical Jesus of Nazareth.'

You can obtain that from www.jcstudies.com. It comes with a book and 6 DVD’s with 12, 40 minutes sessions on it, and its worth it price in gold. This series will show you that not only did Jesus know He was the Messiah, but that He said so over and over again.

Pastor Hagee has gone too far with this book, and I believe he will do more harm them good to the Messianic Movement around the globe by its release. He has hurt the Jews, and not helped them. Heaven help him.

Shalom,
Rev. Barbara A. Di Gilio Th.D
Mayim Hayim Ministries
================================================== ====

After receiving the message above, I wrote to Barbara and asked if I could post it in this forum. Here is her response:

================================================== ====
Good Morning Richard,

Thanks, and by all means use what I wrote in your forum. I was sick over it. I was a member of CUFI, and gave money this pass year, but I will never give them a dime again. I have other ways to fund Israel. I'm with you, I fully support Israel in every way, but your right Hagee is dead wrong about who Yeshua is. Hagee's faith-point here is 100% apostasy. Read this, I put this up before I read the book. I will have to change the last part and now say I cannot support Hagee anymore.

*'WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?'*
<http://www.mayimhayim.org/Rabbi%20Mike/Rabbi%20Jack/What%20Love%20Got%20To%20Do%20With%20It.htm>

/By Messianic Rabbi Jack Zimmerman,
Congregation Beth Simchat HaMashiach, <http://www.azshabbat.org/> //
Phoenix, Arizona
July 24th. 2007/

Blessings to you for telling the truth, I had no time to write the article myself, and you did a great job on it that's why I want to use it. :-)

God Bless you,

Barbara <><
================================================== ====

[okmedia]

Finally, I would like to address a point concerning God's will and human responsibility. You say that the Jews "can not be blamed" because "it was God's will for that to happen." The fact that something is "God's will" does not exonerate the wicked people who commit the sin. This is stated explicitly in Acts 2:23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:" It was God's will that Christ be crucified, but the people who did it were guilty of murder and rightly declared to be "wicked" in the same verse that declares they fulfilled "determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God." I explained this is some detail in my previous post. The Jews that rejected Jesus did so because they rejected the Truth. Jesus quoted Isaiah as a judgment on them for their unbelief. He said the Jews who rejected Him did so because they were sons of the devil. How do you interpret these verses? Why didn't you respond to my answer?

Only a handful of the Jews actually took part in rejecting Jesus, but many more in the city doubtless also rejected him because many of them, not just the leadership, persecuted the first Christians, and later persecuted Paul. Later judgment came upon the whole nation, as Jesus predicted. They paid for their sin, but the Jews of today are not guilty of rejecting Jesus, so they cannot to be blamed.

Only the first century Jews rejected Jesus. Don't say, they rejected him every day by not converting, everyone on the planet that hears the gospel and rejects it would be doing the same. That is different from this subject.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Only a handful of the Jews actually took part in rejecting Jesus, but many more in the city doubtless also rejected him because many of them, not just the leadership, persecuted the first Christians, and later persecuted Paul. Later judgment came upon the whole nation, as Jesus predicted. They paid for their sin, but the Jews of today are not guilty of rejecting Jesus, so they cannot to be blamed.

Only the first century Jews rejected Jesus. Don't say, they rejected him every day by not converting, everyone on the planet that hears the gospel and rejects it would be doing the same. That is different from this subject.

Hey there okmedia,

I agree completely. Jews are no different than Gentiles when it comes to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But that does not fix the errors in Hagee's book. Hagee's point was that the first century Jews could not be blamed for rejecting Jesus because Jesus Himself refused to be their Messiah. This is why his book is heretical. It directly contradicts the fundamental Gospel message of the New Testament which declares with perfect clarity that Jesus Christ came to be Messiah for the Jews first, and also for the Gentiles. Is that clear to you now, or do you believe that Hagee is correct?

Richard