It’s curious when a well known evangelist begins to preach something that the church hasn’t had an inclin of for it’s 2000 year existence. Interestingly, John Hagee is a dispensationalist preacher and is a prime example of concern that is expressed towards this movement since it is more politically based on the re-establishment of the state of Israel than based on anything written in the Bible. As a supporter of Israel and a dispensationalist I am baffled by some of the statements in Hagee’s recent book In Defense of Israel. So here I’ll attempt to respond to a few statements I found in this review from the book which fall apart when one has a basic knowledge of Jesus’ mission. Hagee makes no bones about his belief that Jesus was not the Messiah. His statements are quoted with my response underneath.
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)
He did. In fact, Jesus performed the three Messianic signs foretold in the Talmud which wasn’t regarded by him as an authoritative work. He healed the leper, healed a man blind from birth and cast out a dumb demon. Since these acts had never been performed in Palestine the Talmudic tradition held that due to their rarity and impossibility, these would be signs performed by the Messiah.
Jesus refused to produce a sign … because it was not the Father’s will, nor his, to be Messiah. (p 138)
Jesus refused to produce a sign because he was already producing all of the signs the Pharisees needed. He was against them putting him to the test.
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)
Because as the scripture says “his time had not yet come”. It wasn’t until a specific moment that he was to present himself as Messiah to be worshipped, namely the day he rode in Jerusalem on a donkey.
They wanted him to be their Messiah, but he flatly refused. (p. 141)
No he didn’t he actively encouraged people to follow him and to trust in him until that moment that he presented himself.
He refused to be their Messiah, choosing instead to be the Savior of the world (p. 143)
The bizarreness of that sentence boggles my mind.
Jesus rejected to the last detail the role of Messiah in word or deed. (p. 145)
I wonder if he were to demonstrate this from the gospels. The best evidence one could offer for this is a hatchet job of a few verses in which Jesus told people to keep quiet. I hate to be someone who drags out an old canard but you need to read a verse in it’s intended context otherwise it can say whatever you want it to.
TRF
