John Hagee denies Jesus claimed to be the Messiah

Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry ^ | Nov. 24, 2007 | Matt Slick

[Ottofire]

John Hagee denies Jesus claimed to be the Messiah

Dr. John Hagee is the founder of the Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas. Cornerstone is a nondenominational church with several thousand members. Dr. John Hagee can be seen on more than 160 television stations and 50 radio stations across America. He is the author of at least 10 books.¹

On the surface everything looks good. On his website at jhm.org, Dr. John Hagee affirms the basics of the Christian faith including the deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc.  His beliefs page is not very precise, but it appears to be within orthodoxy.  The problem, however, is with his new book "In Defense of Israel" where Dr. Hagee apparently states that Jesus was not the Messiah.  If you were to go to youtube.com² you can hear where Dr. Hagee speaks regarding his book and says his book, In Defense of Israel, will prove that "Jesus did not come to Earth to be the Messiah," (20 seconds in) and that "...since Jesus refused by word and deed to claim to be the Messiah how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" (32 seconds in).  Obviously, this is a huge problem. 

Hagee defines 'Messiah' as political deliverer

So, instead of making my judgment on a one minute sound bite, I bought the book and went through it.  I didn't read the whole thing.  Instead, I went to the section (Chapter 10, pages 121-169) where he dealt with Jesus as the Messiah.  In short, Hagee takes several pages to characterize the Jewish idea of the Messiah as being a political deliverer who was supposed to free Israel from Roman oppression.  This is very significant.  Hagee defines Messiah not as a spiritual deliverer, but as a political one.  To substantiate his position, Hagee calls Moses the messiah of Israel and speaks of the political deliverance of Israel from Egyptian oppression.  Note what Hagee says in his book:

1. "...God gave Moses four signs to convince the children of Israel that he was their messiah...He  knew he was anointed of God to overthrow Egypt and lead the Jewish people to the promised land." p. 136.
2. "The next two signs God gave Moses were to convince the children of Israel that Moses was their Messiah." p. 136
3. "When impetuous Peter could stand it no longer, he blurted out, 'You are the Christ.' Or in other words, 'You are the anointed one!  You are the Messiah who will lead the Jews in their revolt against Rome.'" p. 140
4. "Even after his resurrection and repeated denials that he would not be the Messiah, his disciples were still hanging on to the last thread of hope that he would now smash realm (Acts 1:6)." p. 141
   1.  For reference, Acts 1:6 says, "So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
5. "He refused to be their Messiah, choosing instead to be the Savior of the world." p. 143.

Notice that in quote number 1 Hagee cites Moses as the Messiah of Israel who was to overthrow Egypt.  In quote 3 Hagee interprets Peter's words to again relate the term Messiah as as a political deliverer.  In quote 4 Hagee cites Acts 1:6 which is a reference to restoring Israel as a political power.  So, we can conclude that Hagee is defining the Messiah as a political deliverer.  Therefore, if we were to use this definition, Hagee is correct.  Jesus did not come to be a political Messiah.  But, Dr. John Hagee has still made a big mistake.  He has failed to define his terms adequately and caused an uproar.

The term Messiah and John Hagee's error

Remember, in the video² John Hagee said his book, In Defense of Israel, will prove that "Jesus did not come to Earth to be the Messiah," (20 seconds in) and that "...since Jesus refused by word and deed to claim to be the Messiah how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" (32 seconds in).  He did not clarify what he meant by Messiah - and I think he did it on purpose.  Nevertheless, let's take a look at the word as it is used in the New Testament -- something Hagee should have done but didn't do in his chapter.  The English word "messiah" is translated from the greek μeσσίας (messias) and is found only two times in the New Testament: 

1. John 1:41, "He found first his own brother Simon, and said to him, 'We have found the Messiah' (which translated means Christ)."
2. John 4:25-26, "The woman said to Him, 'I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.' ²⁶ Jesus said to her, 'I who speak to you am He.'"

We see that Jesus is called the Messiah in John 1:41 and in John 4:25-26 Jesus affirms that he is the Messiah. This flatly contradicts Hagee's statement that on the video that  "...Jesus refused by word and deed to claim to be the Messiah."  Dr. John Hagee is just plain wrong!

There are two significant points worth mentioning here.  First, the word "messiah" is translated as "Christ":  "messiah" is the Old Testament Hebrew equivalent for the New Testament Greek "christ". So whenever we see the word Christ used in the New Testament we know it is speaking of Messiah.  Second, Jesus himself affirmed that he was the Christ.  Here are some additional scriptures that confirm this.

1. Matt. 16:16-17, "And Simon Peter answered and said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' ¹⁷ And Jesus answered and said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.'"
2. Mark 14:61-62, "But He kept silent, and made no answer. Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” ⁶² And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
3. John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
4. See also Luke 24:26,46; John 10:23

So, since Jesus affirmed that he was the Messiah (John 4:25-26) and the Christ (Matt. 16:17; Mark 15:61-62; and John 17:3), we must conclude that Hagee has clearly not done his homework regarding how the word is used in the Bible.  He has failed to do proper research.  How can this be?  Why would Dr. Hagee fail to mention these verses and the plain scriptural teaching that Jesus is the Messiah?

Conclusion

I can see only two possibilities to explain Hagee's blatant oversight -- but I must state that these are only my opinions.  First, perhaps Hagee worded his advertisement and book in such a way to cause controversy and increase sales.  I don't know, but it caused me to buy the book so that I could research what he meant.  Second, Dr. Hagee has such a huge agenda regarding his support for Israel that he has apparently allowed himself to do shoddy and incomplete research regarding this topic of the Messiah so as to support a particular view of Israel to the complete denouncement of what is known as Replacement Theology.

There are a lot of people complaining about John Hagee's comments and rightfully so since they are misleading.  They do not represent the full scope of the term Messiah and they are incendiary.  Though I do not like defending him in this issue, I must remind the reader that as far as Hagee's definition of "messiah" being a political deliverer goes, he is correct; Jesus did not come to be a political deliverer and free Israel from Roman rule.  However, Dr. Hagee needs to be far more clear and define his terms.  I'm convinced he knew the uproar his statements would cause.

Furthermore, he needs to reassess his comments and adopt a more biblically complete position regarding the Hebrew term Messiah (which is equivalent of the Greek term Christ).  For example, Christ is Messiah (John 1:41); Christ as Son of Man coming on the clouds (Matt. 26:63-64); Christ as Savior (Luke 2:11); Christ as King of the Jews (Luke 23:2-3); Christ will reign forever (Rev. 11:15), etc.  These are definitely "political" as they show Christ as someone who is King and who reigns.  He also should address Jesus' very clear claim to be the Messiah in John 4:25-26.  I mean, how could he not address it?³

Finally, there were other things in the book that I thought were problematic, but the intent of this article is not to focus on them. Nevertheless, I believe that Dr. Hagee writes with a very specific agenda, the ultra-support of Israel, and I think it has clouded his judgment.  He needs to step back, reassess his work, and clarify his position.
____________________

1. http://www.jhm.org/pastor.asp
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0K1GEs2gAI
3. I found no reference in the book to John 4:25-26.  If anyone finds it, please let me know.

[Ron Jeremy]

Plus, Hagee tells people, right before he passes the collection plate, that if they are unsatisfied with what they have, its because they don’t give enough.

[RexBeach]

Mr. Hagee needs to go on a diet.

[Joe 6-pack]

A lot of these ministers seem to overlook that gluttony thing.

[counterpunch]

Hagee is correct. Jesus never claimed it. Others did.

[The Lumster]

Hagee is correct. Jesus never claimed it. Others did.

Hagge is a heretic.

John 4:25-26
The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am [he]

That's pretty clear isn't it?

[Ottofire]

>Hagee is correct. Jesus never claimed it. Others did.

John 4:25-26, “The woman said to Him, ‘I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.’ 26 Jesus said to her, ‘I who speak to you am He.’”

So what you are saying is that you reject the Scriptures, and have probably some other source for revelation that supports your statement? Please fill us in on this revelation, so that we might test it for truth.

[mnehring]

It is amazing how many people follow Hagee. His ignorance is beyond belief. His mistake comes from his lack of understanding of the basic word Messiah. There are two connotations within the Bible of this term. There are 'messiahs' and then there is 'The Messiah'. They both originate from the root word mashiyach but in most contexts within the Bible, it is used as 'The Messiah' or 'Anointed One' and is referenced as we see in Daniel 9:26 to the ONE prophesied redeemer. There was also the use of having 'messiahs', who were anointed leaders or kings (such as Lev 4:3) but where not the ONE anointed one.

Basically, this is a basic grammatical distinction like the difference between Christ and Christian. Same root, very different meaning.

[Russ]

Just one more person trying to sell books on the back of outrageous statements. Hagee, meet Mr. McClellen...

[Moose4]

No, he did claim to be the Messiah at least twice according to the article above. But he wasn’t the Messiah that the Jews were expecting...in fact he was almost the exact opposite of it. The Jews were expecting someone to lead them in an uprising against their Roman masters. What they got was someone telling them to “love their enemies”.

Interestingly, I was flipping channels yesterday morning at home and watched a few minutes of a History Channel show on crucifixion. (Why they put this on at 9 in the morning, I have no idea.) In talking about Jesus’ crucifixion, they stated that the Romans had Jesus arrested—presumably because they considered him a troublemaker and potential rebel—brought him before Pilate, and had him scourged and crucified. Not one mention of the Sanhedrin’s part in what happened, not one mention of Caiphas, not one mention of the Jewish crowd demanding His death. It’s not like I hold modern Jews responsible for Christ’s death—after all, it was all foreordained as part of God’s greater plan—but are we really so politically correct that the part the Jews of Jerusalem played in the death of Christ can’t even be mentioned anymore?

}:-)4

[Condor51]

On the surface everything looks good. On his website at jhm.org, Dr. John Hagee affirms the basics of the Christian faith including the deity of Christ, the Trinity, etc. His beliefs page is not very precise, but it appears to be within orthodoxy.

Ditto.
When I first heard about him and his off the wall comments about Catholics I went to his website and everything appeared copacetic on its face.

But going deeper it sure looks like Hagee has 'issues' and needs to see a Psychiatrist. However the only problem with that is they're all whacked out atheists who need mental help themselves. Plus most shrinks are Jewish so that presents an additional problem to begin with for a Christian Reverend 'with issues' - even if he finds a sane Psychiatrist.

No offense against Jewish Psychiatrists meant.

[GLH3IL]

...and the bible spoke loudly and often abut false prophets as well, we are sadly swimming in them it seems like. Hagee can preach whatever he wants to preach, those of us that can read bible with an intelligent mind know if they should listen to him or not.

I believe that religion is being hijacked successfully because of a growing level of poorly educated minds coming from our educational system. The 17th and 18th Century Scots understood quite well that a strong moral backbone of strong faith must be coupled with a strong emphasis on REAL meaningful education was the only way to ensure a true free and civilized society. Indeed,in 1696 Scotland passed an “Act for Setting School” which led the way for Scotland to eventually be one of the most educated populations throughout the most if not all of 18th Century. The result, people could read the Bible for themselves and grasp for themselves what it was about, rather than having clergy interpret it however they wished, As Hagee is doing, in order to effect a certain response from the population.

It is no accident that, as our educational system has declined in effectiveness, liberalism and corrupt religious philosophy has warped our society in so many sickening ways.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Haggee is wrong on so much, nothing that comes out his pie-hole surprises me.

He’s in a different category from Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland, but he’s just as wrong.

[Buggman]

Ugh. This says more about this alleged ministry than it does about Hagee--that they're sloppy and looking for a bone to pick rather than looking for the truth.

Go pick up any book by Hagee or go pop by his website and read his statement of beliefs: "We believe in the deity of Jesus Christ as the only begotten Son of God. We believe in His substitutionary death for all men, His resurrection, and His eventual return to judge the world."

Obviously, he does believe that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah, or he wouldn't call Him "Christ." The point he was trying to make in his book--which the heresy-hunting types would realize if they weren't drooling too much at a chance to "expose" someone they happen to disagree with to actually read the passage in context--is that Yeshua did not come in His First Coming to fulfill the role of the Davidic King, but of the Suffering Servant.

I don't always agree with John Hagee, but I have far more respect for his honesty, integrity, and intellect than I do for his detractors right now.

Shalom!

[taxcontrol]

[disclosure - I'm not acquainted with Dr Hagee, his book or his teachings]

I would point out that during Jesus’s time, there was an expectation that the OT Messiah was going to be a political deliverer from the oppression of Rome. While it can be argued that this was a false expectation of many of the people, it does provide a point of reference for this discussion.

I would also point out that Dr Hagee appears to have taken great pains to identify that Jesus never claimed to be the political deliverer that would meet these worldly expectations.

So I'm of the opinion that perhaps this is much ado about nothing, and I will reserve judgment until I have studied Dr Hagee’s position more carefully.

[Cecily]

I am happy that he supports Israel and raises money for Israel, but he twists himself into a pretzel to avoid having to proclaim or acknowledge that Jewish people need the salvation that comes through the repentence of sin, belief in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and faith in Jesus Christ the Son of God. He tosses out essentials of the Christian faith so that he can hobnob with the Israeli PM and ambassador and important rabbis, and get lots of kudos from them. Meanwhile, our and their Savior is nowhere to be found, because His message causes friction and tension. Christian supporters of Israel and the Jewish people should not ignore or downgrade Jesus Christ.

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Buggman]

It’s not like I hold modern Jews responsible for Christ’s death—after all, it was all foreordained as part of God’s greater plan—but are we really so politically correct that the part the Jews of Jerusalem played in the death of Christ can’t even be mentioned anymore?

Certainly, the role of the Sanhedron--in particular, the role of the Sadducees, who deliberately hand-picked a Sanhedron and did not include those that they knew would stand up in Yeshua's defense (cf. Luke 23:51)--should not be glossed over. But neither should the myth that all of Jerusalem called for Yeshua's death be promoted. Pilate's courtyard would hold a few hundred at most, and Scripture is clear that this crowd was, like the court, packed and controlled by Yeshua's enemies among Israel's leadership (Mat. 27:20, Luke 23:1).

Making out the crowd at Yeshua's trial to be representative of "the Jews" as a whole is neither accurate nor fair.

Shalom!

[Uri’el-2012]

Ottofire

which the heresy-hunting types would realize if they............. actually read the passage in context--is that Yeshua did not come in His First Coming to fulfill the role of the Davidic King, but of the Suffering Servant.

The nuance of the Word has been missed by many.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[mikeus_maximus]

To begin with, the "Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah" nonsense was first championed by Higher Criticism then conclusively refuted with the text of the Gospels themselves about 100 years ago.

Second, Hagee is making the same flawed assumption the Jewish leaders did in Christ's day. His was not a political or military revolution; it was a moral revolution. Apparently, Hagee remains unaffected.