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.

[seoul62]

Listen I bear you no ill-will, I have found peace in accepting Jesus as my Lord and Saviour and when it is my time to go, I want him to hold my hand and bring me to heaven. He gives life when there is no life, such as the birth of my lovely daughter, after I was told I was too old to have a child and I suffered numerous miscarriages. Peace be with you Manfred and go in Christ, He is the Light of the World!!!!!!!/Just Asking - seoul62.......

[jkl1122]

Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and not of this world (John 18:36). Also, Scripture teaches that Christ will reign as king and function as priest at the same time from His throne (Zechariah 6:12-13). Scripture teaches that Christ will do neither of these things while on the earth.

We know from Jeremiah 22:24-30 that no descendant Jehoiachin will ever again rule from the physical throne of David. Jesus is one of his descendants through both Joseph and Mary. We also know from Hebrews 7:14 and Hebrews 8:4 that Christ could not function as high priest while on the earth because He is not descended from the priestly tribe.

[Buggman]

And thus Greek philosophy and Gnosticism masquerade as Christianity.

Christ’s kingdom is a spiritual kingdom and not of this world (John 18:36).

Yep. The rabbis were well-acquainted with the term "the Kingdom (i.e., the Rule) of Heaven/God." It refers to accepting the rule of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob in one's heart--and since God is not of this world, neither is His Kingdom/Rule.

However, Messiah Himself said that there would be a day when the Kingdom, which now only those who have been born in the Spirit can truly see (John 3:3), would be restored to Israel (Acts 1:6ff). The same Zechariah who prophesied of the great King-Priest also prophesied that one day all the Gentile nations would come to Jerusalem every Feast of Tabernacles in order to worship Israel's King (Zec. 14:16ff).

Scripture teaches that Christ will do neither of these things while on the earth.

No it doesn't--it just teaches that He is currently officiating in the Tabernacle of Heaven.

We know from Jeremiah 22:24-30 that no descendant Jehoiachin will ever again rule from the physical throne of David. Jesus is one of his descendants through both Joseph and Mary.

Actually, no He isn't. Joseph was His adopted father, so while He gains the legal right to the throne through him, He doesn't receive the blood-curse on Jehoiachin's descendants. Mary was of the line of David, but through his son Nathan rather than through the royal line, and was not descended from Jehoiachin.

The virgin-birth actually sidesteps the curse very neatly.

Anyway, you're effectively calling the angel Gabriel a liar, since he told Mary that her son would be given "the throne of his father, David" (Luke 1:32). The last time I checked, David's throne wasn't in Heaven.

We also know from Hebrews 7:14 and Hebrews 8:4 that Christ could not function as high priest while on the earth because He is not descended from the priestly tribe.

Heb. 8:4 says that Yeshua "would not be a priest at all" on the earth because He isn't a Levite, and yes, His priesthood is currently set in the Heavenly Tabernacle. Neither can He rule on David's throne in Heaven, as already noted. The only true solution, and the only one that doesn't simply ignore all of the prophets, is that He will return and bring His priesthood with Him and reign on David's throne.

Btw, speaking of kings and priests and the promises thereof:

Jer 33:17 For thus says the LORD: David shall never want a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to burn meal offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Jer 33:19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, saying,
Jer 33:20 Thus says the LORD: If you can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, so that there shall not be day and night in their season;
Jer 33:21 then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.
Jer 33:22 As the army of the sky can’t be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites who minister to me.

Note the plurals, and note that you yourself have said that Yeshua is not a Levite. It seems that God has not quite finished with Aaron's line, but will keep His promise to Phineas that, "Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace: and it shall be to him, and to his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel" (Num. 25:12f).

If you had done your homework in the first 3/4ths of the Bible, you would not so misunderstand the last quarter of it.

Shalom!

[Uri’el-2012]

The virgin-birth actually sidesteps the curse very neatly.

Miriam's role was not her characteristics or value,
but her bloodlines to King David,
having no brothers and
the exception started by
the daughters of Zelophehad.

There are five things that are important here:

1. Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers
and is descended from King David.

2. Joseph is descended from King David.
But he is from a line prohibited to inherit.

3. The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad
(These were daughters who had no brothers)
is in effect (Numbers 26, 27, 36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7).

4. If a woman who has no brothers marries a man of the same tribe
She can inherit forever.

5. Joseph and Miriam are married (each descended from King David)
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Yah'shua (Messiahship).

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[safisoft]

I sometimes wonder if threads like this merely draw the rabid contrarians, or whether some people are simply ignorant of the Bible.

Hagee is absolutely correct. Hagee is not saying the Jesus is NOT the Messiah, he said that Jesus Himself did not declare Himself as such.

The fact is, not only did Jesus NOT declare Himself to be Messiah, He commanded His followers and others not to tell anyone. Either some of you haven't bothered to actually read the Bible (simply relying on your "Pastor's" theology), or you haven't asked any questions when reading it). For instance: Why did Jesus tell people NOT to tell anyone who He was? The answer, lost on those trained in Greek-based Western Theology is one very apparent to those who know the Scriptures from their original tongue: Hebrew.

Hebraic thinking demands that that ontology [the makeup of anything] is determined by function - NOT by declaration. Saying sometime counts for NOTHING. Doing matters. Funny, I thought conservatives understood this, instead you knee-jerk into symbolism over substance.. The substance of anything is determined by what it/he/she does.

Matt 16:20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Messiah.

Mark 7:36 Then He commanded them that they should tell no one; but the more He commanded them, the more widely they proclaimed it.

Mark 8:30 Then He strictly warned them that they should tell no one about Him.

Mark 9:9 Now as they came down from the mountain, He commanded them that they should tell no one the things they had seen, till the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

Lk 9:20-21 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered and said, “The Messiah of G-d.” And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one"

It is refreshing to hear men like Hagee speak up and say the truth, without fear of coming under some creedal degree that negates the plain words of Scripture for the sake of some dogmatic "doctrinal" stand.

Anyone can claim to be "messiah" - Matt 24 warns about that. Messiah is, as Messiah does. And to see Messiah fully realized... you will have to wait. There is stuff that still remains (Isaiah 2, etc.) - and then you will say, "Wow. Now HE really is the Messiah... because He did all that was foretold."

BTW, He is Messiah. One day, all the world will know it, NOT because some fanatics claimed that He said it... but because everyone will fully see it.

[Cronos]

That’s the problem with sola scripture (am I spelling it right?), everyone is free to interpret whatever they like. The problem occurs when they mislead folks down the wrong path.

[Cronos]

Well, the Jews were a symbol for ALL of us, so when the Jews did something to a fellow Jew (Jesus), it was actually, US, all of us who crucified Jesus. It was not a Jew or a Roman who did that. The answer to the question in the hymn “who was it that crucified my lord?” is “ME”.

[Cronos]

or a Redemptorist preacher.

[Cronos]

There is no such thing as a “RCC gospel”, there is the gospel by The Church and yes, the Jesuits spread the Bible. Furthermore, the very term “RCC” is Henry VIIIth’s political gambit. We are The Church, founded by Christ, through the works of His Apostles with a tradition and teaching dating back to Christ. The Church was the instrument through which The Biblical texts were collected by God. The only editing that occured was when Martin Luther decided to remove some books in the 1500s.

[Boagenes]

Is he kidding? I think he needs to go back and re-read the gospels. When Peter confesses Jesus as "The Christ", Jesus tells him God revealed this to him (Peter) and he will be given the keys of the kingdom. In Mark, when Caiaphas asks him directly, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Living God?", Jesus answers, "Ego emei" ("I am"). That's just two I can pull off the top of my head.

Hagee is nuts.

[Cronos]

Worse than some, not as bad as some others I’ve seen

That's the problem with individual interpretation based on a few readings. you need years, decades to even begin to understand God's word. The Church does not force it's teachings on us -- it asks us to read on our own and when we have our own conclusions or questions, are we so egotistical to believe that others in 2000 years have not reached the same conclusions -- right or wrong? For instance, Jehovah's witness belief mirrors early heresies. The Mormon belief, in a way mirrors another successful christian heresy: Islam

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

“Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” (2 Cor 11:1 - 4)

“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:6 - 9)

What the RCC proclaims about salvation (works and priests and Mary) IS another gospel. The RCC imagines it was founded by the Lord, but has nothing but its own protestations to rest on in that regard. The pagan rituals embraced by the RCC are not from the Lord.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

By your testimony I hold you as a brother in Christ and wish you His best.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

By your testimony I hold you as a sister in Christ and wish you His best. (edited)

[Uri’el-2012]

In Mark, when Caiaphas asks him directly, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Living God?", Jesus answers, "Ego emei" ("I am"). That's just two I can pull off the top of my head.

Hagee is nuts.

50 posted on May 29, 2008 2:06:39 PM MDT by Boagenes

When Yah'shua answers "I AM"
is He answering the question or
is He saying that He is the Great "I AM" => YHvH ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Boagenes]

It's always been my opinion that it's both. He's answering, but he's also claiming to be I AM of Exodus. John makes this eminently more clear in his gospel in verses John 8:58-59. There, Jesus is clearly stating that he is the great "I AM" (I AM THAT I AM or I AM WHO I AM). This, of course, is why the Jews present try to stone him.

Jesus clearly stated over and over, according to the gospels, not so thinly veiled, and direct, claims of being both the Messiah and God himself (or equality with God).

[Uncle Chip]

That’s the problem with sola scripture (am I spelling it right?), everyone is free to interpret whatever they like.

And that, of course is your interpretation to which you are free to interpret whatever way you like.

[Cronos]

touché :)

[Cronos]

What the RCC proclaims about salvation (works and priests and Mary) IS another gospel.

And what have you been told about what The Church proclaims about salvation? Is that in the catechism of the Church? I don't think so.

The Church was founded by The Lord -- or do you not believe history? Do you not read about the early persecutions of the Church and the bishops of Rome, of Jerusalem, of Antioch? The Church follows in direct line from Christ through His Apostles: St. Peter and Paul in Rome, St. Peter in Jerusalem and the other Apostles setting up the Churchs that are now part of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Churchs, the Assyrian Church and the Armenian Church.


Finally, The Church doesn't have any pagan rituals -- unless you consider the celebration of the Passover sacrifice (the Mass) as somehow to your mind, pagan.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

Only the vain imaginations of the RCC claim that it was founded by Christ. NO church can rightfully make that claim. The church Christ founded is not restricted to the feeble attempts of man to label His church.

RCC doctrine and false history is full of deception and lies, burdening men with religion from Jewish and pagan traditions.

I’ve read history. I’ve read proclamations by RCs. I reject the RCC claims about it’s history based on Scripture AND history. I reject RCC doctrines that rage against Scripture - and they are legion.

Believe what you will. Do not feign surprise that not everyone believes likewise.