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.

[ChurtleDawg]

Hagee is too caught up in Christian Zionism

[Moose4]

Point well taken, and I apologize—I tried to do that by saying “Jews of Jerusalem” in my last sentence, but I didn’t differentiate well enough. And not even all of the Sanhedrin wanted Jesus killed. But this particular program didn’t mention that connection to the Crucifixion at all. It was all “the Romans.” And that’s inaccurate—it was the Sadduccees using the Romans to accomplish their desired end.

}:-)4

[Condor51]

*** 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.)... 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.***

The History Channel reruns its programs. I watched the same program last Sunday Night - 7:00 pm CDT. (Maybe it was Saturday night?) And you're right about the omission of the Jews. I wondered too and at first I thought it was p.c. rearing its ugly head.

Then I figured that since the program was about the Roman practice of Crucifixion itself, including the Jewish part might have just muddied the waters and gotten into religion which the show was not about.

Anyway that was my conclusion.

---

That being said, the History Channel DOES go p.c. especially on WWII and the 'Russian Front'. 'Soviet Union', Red Army', 'Communists', etc is never uttered. Its always 'Russians' and 'Russia'. They do the same thing when they show those film clips of the SA Stormtroopers in those street brawls that the SA are fighting against Communists. For some reason the History Channel is Communist friendly.

[dante1187]

Isn’t this the same guy that has people try to vomit their demons out into a bag?

[jkl1122]

Christ currently reigns as both king and high priest. His kingdom has been established and is made up of His body, the church.

[Moose4]

I’ve noticed that about History as well. They use the term “Russian” when “Soviet” is much more accurate...mainly because millions of the troops in the Red Army weren’t Russian at all. They were Ukranian, or Kazakh, or Georgian, or Azerbaijani, etc. “Russian” is not an exact replacement for “Soviet”, Russia was only part of the Soviet Union.

}:-)4

[pogo101]

I’ll start giving a rat’s a$$ about John Hagee, in the context of the 2008 race, once it’s shown that he’s

- been McCain’s pastor for 22 years
- officiated at McCain’s wedding
- baptized McCain’s children
- preached regularly to McCain’s infant/ toddler children
- received tens of thousands of dollars from the McCains

Until then, who cares? He does seem odd, though, yes.

[Buggman]

Do you believe in the Second Coming?

[seoul62]

No, there is another of the tele-preachers, I hink he is affiliated with Trinity-Broadcasting: Old Guy with a wife, whose look: clown-like make-up and cotton-candy hair-tinged pink, grotesque beyond belief. That is the face of Christianity - scary, scary, scary. Compare that with the Jesuit priests preaching and living amongest the poor in the third world countries - pictures and words speak volumes, versus these slick, materialistic preachers./Just Asking - seoul62.......

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I think finding a tele-preacher who is an exception to the rule of false teachers would be difficult.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

And more importantly - these tele-preachers ARE NOT the face of Christianity. Such is not visible, as the head (with face) of the church is the Lord Jesus, and we know not what He looks like.

His characteristics, however, are known: humility and obedience to His Father.

[jkl1122]

Absolutely. It is a certainty, and when He comes back, He will take the faithful members of His body home with Him to heaven.

[seoul62]

But do you agree with me that the Jesuits, living and spreading the Gospel in Third World Countries are the complete antithesis to these phony televangelists?/Just Asking - seoul62......

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I do not know what Gospel these Jesuits are spreading. If it’s the RCC gospel, no - I do not agree that they are authentic. If they are proclaiming the Biblical gospel (1 Cor 15), then I agree that what they do is the work of an evangelist and of very high value in God’s kingdom.

[onedoug]

I like John Hagee. But then, I'm ger tzedek.

Hyam Maccoby, Revolution In Judaea: Jesus And The Jewish Resistance

[Charles Bronson Forever]

Hagee wins no laurels.

[seoul62]

Manfred, I am a Catholic and I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour and no one is going to tell me otherwise. You sound like my Father, may he rest in peace a Methodist who did not have kind words for the Catholic Church. He even stated that the Priests were mostly drunk and homosexual but he did have a happy and loving marriage with my Mother, a Catholic./Just Asking - seoul62........

[big'ol_freeper]

Unfortunately you will come across a few die-hard anti-Catholic bigots on threads here. Best to just be thankful you found the fullness of faith and pray that others do too. As Saint Pio said, “Pray, hope and don’t worry.”

As for Hagee.... just another personal interpretation of Holy Scripture. Worse than some, not as bad as some others I’ve seen. But all lacking in the fullness of Truth contained in the Catholic Church. That is my humble belief.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

I do not hate RCs, nor am I of the opinion that there are no Christians in the RCC; merely that the RCC is long departed from the narrow way prescribed by Jesus. I don’t base my views on what people do (the so-called priests, for example), but on what the doctrines of the RCC are and how they compare to Scripture.

I pray you are truly in Christ and not merely in the doctrine of your church.

[Buggman]

Absolutely. It is a certainty, and when He comes back, He will take the faithful members of His body home with Him to heaven.

Check your Bible again. Yes, there will be a Rapture, but that's just to Resurrect the dead and get us out of the way of the Day of the Lord. Afterwards, He will return with us in tow and rule over the earth from Jerusalem, directly and bodily.

Shalom!