A Tin Ear for Nuance
At the outset of this article, let me be VERY clear: I completely disagree with John Hagee on a slew of issues, particularly in relation to the modern role of Israel. Completely disagree. Despite this, I would not hesitate to call him a Christian brother.
I am rather baffled, though, at the continual harping from CR?N’s general editor, that being the unaccountable Mr. Ken Silva (not to be confused with the completely unaccountable, unknowable “Editor”) on John Hagee, his new book, and his comments about Jesus as Messiah. All “pastor” Silva’s numerous articles on the subject have proven is that the word “research” and “Ken Silva” should not appear in the same sentence, absent the word “poor” in complement to the word “research”. The only thing truly revealed (for those of you who weren’t reading his laughable exegeses of Velvet Elvis) is his continued tin ear for nuance.
To wit:
Mr. Silva keeps trying to insist that John Hagee heretically believes that Jesus is not the Christ (the Messiah), today quoting Hagee’s book:
“[Jesus] refused to be their Messiah [the Jews], choosing instead to be the Savior of the world.”
What Silva completely and utterly misses is that Hagee is referring to the Jewish ideal of Messiah, developed in the “intertestimental period”. In this Messiah ideal, the belief was that there would be many Messiahs, stylized after Judas Maccabeus, who would serve to overthrow foreign powers oppressing Israel. This idea of “Messiah” was often combined with the identification of the Davidic “Shoot” (netzer) identified by Isaiah, as a conquering king who would come to reign in Jerusalem forever.
The Jewish vision of “Messiahship” in the first century was all about overthrowing the Roman occupation of Israel. Hagee, in his book, seeks to show that Jesus rejected this type of Messiahship (as envisioned by Jewish hope against oppression) – which was actually offered to him by Satan in the wilderness – in exchange for the actualy place of the shoot from the stump of Jesse, the Messiahship envisioned by God, which conquered through love, not coersion. Jesus gave clues througout his ministry (read all of John 6) that he was not going to be a conqueror Messiah, but the people didn’t want to believe this – not even his disciples.
In this particular matter, Hagee is completely orthodox, and his wording was chosen as one to better explain Jesus’ role to conversant Jews and Jewish Christians (an audience he frequently addresses). Silva, though, for whatever reason, has chosen to brazenly display his ignorance on such matters for the world to see, and in the end, only serves to warn those already living in fear.
16 Comments(+Add)
I disagree. Hagee completely ignors the overwhelming Scriptural evidence, and his view is dualism, meaning Jews can be saved without Jesus. Even though the Jews had a worldly view of messiahship, Jesus embraced being the messiah and the apostles proclaimed Him as such. To say that Jews or anyone can be saved without Christ is heresy and shows that one can be so consumed with being a friend to Jews that it changed one’s theology.
Jesus was the messiah and only through Him is salvation found for anyone.
Rick,
Jesus not taking the role of a conquering Messiah does not lead to the conclusion that Jews do not need Jesus. Those are two different topics.
As noted, I disagree with Hagee on his treatment of Israel and Jewish theology. However, one of Judiasm’s “proofs” that Jesus was not Messiah is that he did not take on the mantle of Messiah, as taught/believed in the Jewish culture – apart from scripture (that of a conquerer in the mold of David, Solomon or Judas Maccabeus). The counter-argument to this is that Jesus’ taking on the mantle of Messiahship was in line with Isaiah’s prophecy, and that Jesus’ teaching of the Kingdom of God – a kingdom not made with human hands – and that he outright rejected the role of physical Messiah being sought by the Jews.
That picture is amazing.
All that is true, however Hagee says Jesus never claimed to be the messiah which is patently untrue. Even Peter ackowledged Him as the Christ and Jesus embraced it. Hagee teaches evangelism to the Jews is a waste because they already have a faith structure.
Hagee is a false teacher on many fronts.
As one who was indoctrinated by Hagee, Copeland and all… they are snake oil salesmen wearing lamb’s wool… drink their doctrines and you will die.
iggy
Chris,
I say all this with all due respect and love, but…
Have you read the book? This really makes me think you have not. It’s not just Hagee saying Jesus rejected being the typified warrior Jewish ‘Messiah’, he unabashedly claims the Jews CANNOT be held accoutable for their rejection of Jesus because Jesus never offered Himself as THEIR Messiah. Blasphemy. He brings up the jewish concept of Messiah at that time briefly, but his focus is on saying Jesus is NOT the jewish messiah, ie their savior spiritually, not emphasis on the warrior messiah. He’s NOT saying that because He wasn’t the warrior conquerer, that that is why he’s not their ‘messiah’, but because Hagee does not want the Jews to have to be saved through Jesus alone, he says that he’s not their Savior. He’s trying to twist Scripture to find them a ‘way out’, for some ungodly reason, when the only way out is accepting Jesus as Messiah.
John Hagee has comitted terrible blasphemy, I feel. And I pray he repents, and stops teaching this! The book is terrible, just utterly…and you know, I’m really not one to come down on people, and I’m not coming down on him personally, but what he’s teaching.
“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?” That’s from the book, on page 137. Hagee is NOT talking about Warrior Messiah here, but Jesus as God’s Messiah, and how He’s not God’s Messiah to the Jews. Blasphemy, how is not this blasphemy? I’m so upset about this, God help this man!
You can see he’s not just talking about “warrior Messiah” here, he’s talking full blown Jesus is NOT the Jewish Messiah here. Guys, (sometimes) just because CRN reports on something, doesn’t mean it’s not true, that it’s not an accurate ‘call-out’ on a false teaching. Lets look around elsewhere, EVERYONE is reporting on this and discerning it as a false teaching. Just because Silva reports it, doesn’t mean you have to take the opposite side.
It’s not just CRN or the ODMs reporting on this either. I pray all Christians see this teaching, discern good from evil, and reach out to correct John Hagee on this matter.
I don’t know how anyone can get anything out of this book except “we owe Israel SO much” “Bless them or we’ll be cursed!”, “political agenda political agenda political agenda” “I don’t want to offend Jews by telling them that Jesus is THEIR LORD AND CHRIST” and “Jesus is not the messiah to the Jews”.
You know, I always liked Hagee, I found him fairly genuine in his convictions, even if some of his teaching was weird. Even though he was associated with TBN, which I am disgusted by. I still liked him, and I still do, but this teaching is utter blasphemy. “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.” 1 John 2:22
I don’t know what else to say?
Chris, if you love proper and accurate research and reporting as you say you do, and criticize Ken for not having such, you’ll go the extra mile on this one, and I feel you’ll have to agree with the rest of us after further research.
But I think Ken has it right this time. Perhaps his tone and anger is wrong, but what he’s reporting on isn’t. I’m sorry to say, I have to agree with Ken et al.
I really don’t mean this disrespectfully or hurtfully, I just had to say something.
Yours in Christ,
Joe
Joe,
I skimmed the book in Borders over lunch, so no, I’ve not given it the full go-through. I also spoke with a member of his church several weeks ago through my work, in a different context. Ken had already written a few of his articles on Hagee at that time, so I asked the guy if a) Hagee believed Jews are saved without Jesus, and b) if his comments about Jesus rejecting Messiahship were really accurate. His answers were a) no – that Jews (as a race) were not responsible for Jesus death, and that b) what Jesus rejected was a “conquering Messiah” (his words), opting to save the whole world, instead – and that ALL (Jews included) would need to enter the Kingdom through Jesus. According to him, this is what Hagee teaches from the pulpit at his church.
The Jewish concept of Messiah, and what early Christians developed into the meaning of Messiah, post-Jesus, were two completely different things. That was Hagee’s point as I read it a couple days ago.
As I mentioned in the article, I have HUGE MAJOR issues with Hagee from his views on the role of Israel and Word-Faith, in general, but I think harping on his usage of the word Messiah is the wrong area to go after.
I thought it was pretty clear in the book what he was saying, and if he didn’t mean it that why, then why was he so convincing to so many that he meant it that way? If he didn’t mean it, then he definitely needs to clarify and rework A LOT of that book, and state specifically that the jews need Jesus to enter the Kingdom, and that they’re just as responsible for Jesus death as the Gentiles. And just as responsible for rejecting Jesus as Messiah as anyone else is. And that they’re not waiting for a ‘new messiah’.
I’ve heard Hagee preach vaguely on the Jews needing Jesus also, on TBN, but in the context of dual covenant, and that they’re kind of ‘assumed’ to have Jesus by nature of being the chosen people of God originally (ignoring so many Scriptures). Thats the context he means it in, I think. At least RECENTLY (last 2 yrs or so) this is how he’s been going about how Jews must be saved. They’re assumed ‘in’ just like the Catholics assume Mary in to heaven.
I think this is the worst of his doctrinal problems. I think this heresy could really hurt peoples’ relationships with God if they accept this, and it does need to be ‘gone after’, with all due respect to you Chris.
Have you watched the advertisement for this book? I think that shows he didn’t just mean it as “The Jewish concept of Messiah, and what early Christians developed into the meaning of Messiah, post-Jesus, were two completely different things. “.
I think once you go through the book in more detail, and also see what other non ODM sites are saying about the book, you’ll see that Hagee has really gone off the deep end with this one.
Let’s just agree to pray for him and his flock.
Thanks Chris,
Joe
Chris L,
Are you arguing Ken for the sake of arguing Ken? I agree with Rick and Joe and iggy and what they have said is very much sound.
For once ken is spot on.
Is it possible that ken can be correct and you wrong? Or must Ken always be spot-off and you always the one to catch him doing so?
The jews wanted Jesus to be their earthly (like the Kings in Kings/chronicles etc…) king and did not want Jesus to be their heavenly king.
Jesus was the opposite. He did not say he was to be an earthly king but a heavenly one, over Jew and gentile, which JH is confused about. Hence because the jews rejected Jesus as their heavenly messiah and supported him as their earthly messiah (until before crucification), they have rejected Jesus and ought to be blamed for the rejection of Christ as per Gentile.
Yes, Hagee is off the deep end on the issue of Israel and the Jews, but my main complaint is the VOLUME of articles on CRN that all say essentially the same thing.
Plus, Hagee never said Jesus wasn’t the messiah. His opinion is obvious by this statement:
“[Jesus] refused to be their Messiah [the Jews], choosing instead to be the Savior of the world.”
Notice, he said “their” Messiah, not “the” Messiah. He refused to play the role they wrote for him. Big difference.
Joe’s right on this one. Silva and crew have
1) over saturated the site with anti-hagee material, as is fairly common when they find someone they don’t like. What? Paula and Randy White to divorce? Let’s write 25 articles on it in 2 days!!!
2) misrepresented what Hagee said. He doesn’t say Jesus isn’t THE messsiah, just that he refused to fit their definition of messiah.
At least, that’s how I see it.
Personally I do not care if Ken is right on this or not…. if he is more power to him.
But there is so much other stuff that Hagee and that group teach that is so far off that it holds people in spiritual bondage. I know because a lot of that stuff held me there for a few years as a young christian. I praise God that I have forgotten much of it! LOL!
Do I believe in miricles? Of course, but they are not out of my own righteousness… and that is part of the issue with these men.
iggy
I haven’t read the book and I’m not terribly familiar with Hagee, but the sentence quoted sounds similar to something I’ve heard lots and lots of people say in explaining the expectations of the people versus what Jesus was actually doing.
Don’t just look at that one quote guys:
““[Jesus] refused to be their Messiah [the Jews], choosing instead to be the Savior of the world.—
Make sure you look at all the applicable paragraphs, or better yet, read the book. It’s NOT just Jesus isn’t ‘their warrior messiah’, Hagee is stating Jesus ISN’T The REAL Jewish Messiah. 95% of the quotes from the book out there will say that, heck, I posted a quote above that says as much. Read the book and you’ll see, I’m sure. Either way, it’s heresy and lets just pray and move on.
Joe
Joe,
My understanding of all this, and I am reaching waaaaay back in my memory… is the Jews rejected Jesus so now (can be saved by faith) but Jesus rejected them as the chosen people and now the “church” is the chosen people. In the return of Jesus during His reign Jesus will come as the “warrior” messiah and establish His kingdom again on the Throne of David… and in that the Nation of Israel will then be saved. I remember that the teaching states Jesus is/is not the savior if the Jews as a Nation, now… but only as individuals. But will return to save them as a Nation…. again, I was reading Kenyon and others more than Hagee but all seem to come out of Hagee and Hagee out of E. W. Kenyon.
Now I may be off on that, but that is my memory of that teaching.
iggy
Everyone knows that Jesus rejected the “conquering” messiah so that would not be controversial at all. Hagee clearly teaches “dualism” which espouses that Jews who follow their own Old Testament faith structure will be saved without converting to Jesus.
All the things you say about the Jewish views are correct, however Hagee’s teachings are fully heretical and they stem from obscuring the lines between the church and the unsaved Jews. Hagee has had unsaved Jews preach from his pulpit, so regardless of his health and wealth philosophy this teaching may even be worse. I agree though that since Ken has so many negative and vitriolic posts that when something legitimate comes along it is easy to dismiss it.
Ken will feed on Hagee’s bones for months to come.
Hagee really sprung a lleak this time. I just watched the YOUTube video on his book promo. Never saw Kens article but by Hagee’s own word he is a heritic and should be avoided by all. Hagee for some time has preached that the Jews could be saved outside of Christ. Where does Hagee get that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah in word or deed? Scripture is very clear about this. Salvation came first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. I remember Hagee’s brother false teacher Ken Copeland stating that Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah as well.
This stuff is doctrine of demons I think its a real stretch to consider Hagee a brother in Christ. with this kind of teaching.
Unless he of course confess’s his error.
But hey what would that do to his book sales.
Peace
Tim