ABOUT: JOHN HAGEE
------------------------
Christians have listened for many years to the
preaching of John Hagee, senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in San
Antonio, Texas. Hagee attended Trinity University on a football
scholarship, where he graduated with a bachelor's degree before
earning his master's at North Texas State University. He also studied
at Southwestern Bible College and was granted an honorary doctorate
from Oral Roberts University.
Hagee's ministerial activities began in 1958 as
an evangelist. In 1966 he went to San Antonio to become the founding
pastor of what eventually became Trinity Church. After resigning his
pastorate of Trinity in May 1975, Hagee took the helm of the 25-member
Church of Castle Hill in San Antonio. That church — rebuilt to seat
5,000 and dedicated in October 1987 as Cornerstone Church — now has
an active membership of over 13,000.
Through his writings (books, booklets, and
articles in his bimonthly John Hagee Ministries magazine), taped
messages, and daily appearances on his Global Evangelism Television
broadcasts (Cornerstone and John Hagee Today) aired by the Trinity
Broadcasting Network (TBN) and other media outlets, Hagee has gained
broad visibility and influence among evangelicals.
A number of people consider Hagee's teachings to
be thoroughly biblical. We would disagree with Hagee, however, on the
following points.
Preaching Prosperity
John Hagee believes that all Christians should
be financially prosperous so long as they continue to walk in
obedience to God's ordinances. Although he does not subscribe to every
doctrine common to the so-called Faith movement, he does agree with
the movement's view that "poverty is caused by sin and disobeying
the Word of God."1 Hagee, like most other prosperity preachers,
believes that "poverty is a curse."2
Christians achieve prosperity through giving,
asserts Hagee. "When you give to God, He controls your income.
There's no such thing as a fixed income in the Kingdom of God. Your
income is controlled by your giving."3 According to Hagee,
Christians grow prosperous through giving because "God created a
universe where it is impossible to receive without giving. Everything
that God controls, gives. . . . Givers gain. You do not qualify for
God's abundance until you give."4
Turning to the Bible, however, one finds a
number of passages that run contrary to Hagee's teachings concerning
prosperity. Jesus Himself said, "Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God. . . . But woe to you who are rich . .
." (Luke 6:20, 24 NASB). James underscores this point when he
asked, ". . . did not God choose the poor of this world to be
rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who
love Him?" (James 2:5). James later follows with stern words to
the rich (5:1-6; cf. Mark 10:25).
This is not to say that Christians should
consider wealth as something inherently evil. The Bible simply tells
us that material wealth is not the measuring stick for righteousness
or God's blessing; its proper value lies in the purpose for which it
is used.
This is precisely why Paul gave the following
exhortation to Timothy: "Instruct those who are rich in this
present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the
uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all
things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works,
to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the
treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take
hold of that which is life indeed" (1 Tim. 6:17-19).
The power of wealth, however, is such that it
can lead people into idolatry. Some, for instance, may become so
caught up in matters of finances and wealth that they neglect or
completely forget about their duties and responsibilities to God. God,
for some of these individuals, may begin to fade out of the picture
altogether, being replaced by crass materialism. Rather than grounding
their primary concerns on the eternal, they instead devote their lives
to that which perishes (John 6:27; Matt. 6:19-21).5
Promoting Positive Confession
Along with the prosperity message, Hagee accepts
and promotes the doctrine of positive confession — a foundational
teaching of the Faith movement which maintains that Christians can
speak (i.e., positively confess) physical realities into existence as
long as the believer exercises enough faith to accompany his or her
verbal confession. "There is a relationship between your soul and
physical and financial prosperity," declares Hagee. "'This
book of the law shall not depart out of your mouth' [quoting Josh. 1:8
KJV]. That's the spoken Word of God. 'And then thou shalt prosper and
have good success.' When? After you speak and act upon the Word of
God. And you've been hearing that tonight out of the mouth of
[well-known Faith teacher] John Avanzini."6
Like his teachings on prosperity, Hagee's
reiteration of the Faith movement's doctrine of positive confession
runs contrary to the teachings of Scripture. Nothing confessed by
believers in faith — verbally or otherwise — automatically comes
to pass. Only God has the power to create as He wills (Gen. 1:1).
Christians are certainly instructed to pray to God for their requests
(Matt. 6:8-13; 21:22). Ultimately, however, all such requests are
subject to God's sovereign will; whichever ones come to pass only do
so as a direct result of God's will and not the will of the believer
(1 John 5:14).7
Salvation Without Conversion?
Hagee is recognized as a fierce foe of
anti-Semitism. An outspoken supporter of the Jewish people, Judaism,
and the nation Israel, he has been given the "Humanitarian of the
Year" award by the San Antonio B'nai B'rith Council. Hagee has
also been bestowed the "ZOA Israel Service Award" by the
Zionist Organization in Dallas and honored with the "Henrietta
Szold Award" by the Texas Southern Region of Hadassah.8
While his bold stance against anti-Semitism is
certainly praiseworthy, Hagee's zealousness for the Jewish people and
their cause has led him to commit a most serious doctrinal error —
salvation for the Jews without conversion to Christianity. One
newspaper account puts it this way:
Trying to convert Jews is a "waste of
time," he [Hagee] said. . . .
Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha'i, needs
to believe in Jesus, he says. But not Jews. Jews already have a
covenant with God that has never been replaced with Christianity, he
says.
"The Jewish people have a relationship to
God through the law of God as given through Moses," Hagee said.
"I believe that every Gentile person can only come to God through
the cross of Christ. I believe that every Jewish person who lives in
the light of the Torah, which is the word of God, has a relationship
with God and will come to redemption.
"The law of Moses is sufficient enough to
bring a person into the knowledge of God until God gives him a greater
revelation. And God has not," said Hagee . . .9
"There are right now Jewish people on this
earth who have a powerful and special relationship with God,"
declares Hagee in one of his books. "They have been chosen by the
'election of grace' in which God does what he does without asking man
to approve or understand it. Let us put an end to the Christian
chatter that "all the Jews are lost" and can't be in the
will of God until they convert to Christianity! . . . there are a
certain number of Jews in relationship with God right now through
divine election." 10
Hagee also affirms: "If God blinded the
Jewish people to the identity of Jesus as Messiah, how could He send
them to hell for not seeing what he had forbidden them to see?"11
He continues, "All people will gain entrance into heaven through
Christ. The question is one of timing." 12
Such rhetoric raises some thorny questions. When
Hagee says "all people will gain entrance into heaven through
Christ," he is either advocating universalism (literally all
people — Jewish and Gentile — will be saved), or he believes that
all Jews will be saved. In either case, both positions are in serious
error, but the latter is more consistent with his other statements.
The "timing" of the salvation of the
entire Jewish nation is actually irrelevant to Hagee's argument since
he advocates that it is a waste of time attempting to convert them. At
best, then, Hagee implies that even if they are not currently saved,
God will save all Jewish keepers of the Law — past, present, and
future — at some future point.
The Bible paints a different picture. The
apostle Paul demonstrates that Israel had a responsibility to respond
to the Gospel, but rejected it. In Romans 10:19-21, he asks, "Did
they [the Jews] fail to hear?" The rhetorical answer is
"no." Paul relates that, as light and darkness are
understood by all, so the gospel has been made known to all the Jews
(cf. Acts 17:6; 21:28). He continues, "Did they fail to
understand?" The answer once again is "no." Since
Israel has become disobedient through unbelief (Rom. 11:30), God has
delivered the gospel to the Gentiles.13
But God has not entirely rejected Israel —
Paul (himself a Jew) is living proof of this (Rom. 11:1). God has
preserved a remnant, while the others were hardened as a consequence
of their unbelief and trusting in works instead of the righteousness
of Christ (Rom. 11:5-7; cf. 9:31-32; 11:20-23). Elsewhere the apostle
writes, ". . . by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified
in His [God's] sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
. . . for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being
justified by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ
Jesus" (Rom. 3:20, 23-24, emphasis added).
To drive the point home, Paul goes on to say,
". . . the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would
be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the
righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs,
faith is made void and the promise nullified; . . . it is by faith,
that it might be in accordance with grace" (Rom. 4:13- 14, 16).
Scripture draws no distinction between Jews and Gentiles on the issue
of salvation, which is attained by grace through faith alone in
Christ, "apart from works of the law" (3:28; cf. vv. 21-22).
Paul recognized that the Jews of his day had a
misguided zeal that caused them to stumble on this very point
(9:31-32; 10:2-4). Why would he suffer great anguish and wish he were
accursed for Israel's sake if none of them were truly lost? His
anguish comes from the realization that many Israelites are not saved
(Rom. 9:3, 6, 27; 10:1, 9-15; cf. Acts 2:14, 21, 37-39; Rom. 11:14,
17-23).
The Law, revealed through the Jews, was meant to
be "our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we might be justified by
faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a
tutor" (Gal. 3:24-25). As the Bible clearly states: "There
is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs
according to promise" (vv. 28-29). To be saved, a person —
whether Jew or Gentile — must turn to Christ (5:4-6; cf. John 14:6;
Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:9-13) who is "the end of the law for
righteousness for everyone who believes" (Rom. 10:4). In writing
that the "message of the gospel was from Israel, not to
Israel,"14 Hagee discourages Christians from sharing the Good
News with unsaved Jews who, like everyone else, have need of the
gospel if they are to spend eternity with God in heaven.
The Reluctant Messiah
In Hagee's theology, the Jews can hardly be
faulted for not flocking to Christianity since it was supposedly Jesus
who declined their request for Him to be their Messiah. "The
[Jewish] people wanted Him to be their Messiah, but He absolutely
refused," writes Hagee. "The Jews were not rejecting Jesus
as Messiah, it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the
Jews!"15
Suffice it to say, Jesus' explicit claim to be
the Messiah (or Christ) during His trial before the Sanhedrin, the
supreme Jewish tribunal (Matt. 26:64), flatly contradicts Hagee's
assertion. In that same passage, Jesus called Himself the "Son of
Man," an unmistakable reference to the Book of Daniel (7:13)
which alludes to the Messiah. Jesus also applied the same title to
Himself in revealing His identity to "a man of the Pharisees
named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council" (John
3:1, 14-15), as well as to the crowd who questioned His authority to
forgive sins (Mark 2:10).
Furthermore, in response to Jesus' question,
"Who do you say I am?" (Matt. 16:15), Peter answered,
"You are the Christ [Messiah]" (v. 16). Surely, had the
Jewish apostle been wrong, Jesus would have corrected him at that
moment; instead, Peter received the Lord's blessing (v. 17).16 Jesus,
however, instructed Peter, along with several others, not to reveal
His messianic identity until due time (v. 20). He did so to avoid the
prevalent misconceptions about the title, which had by then become
largely understood in political terms17 — something wholly
inappropriate for Jesus' mission at that time — though Jesus did, on
occasion, give public indications of His messiahship (cf. Luke
4:17-21; 20:41-44).
Indeed, Hagee's view is made especially ironic
by the fact that Jesus Himself said, "I was sent only to the lost
sheep of Israel" (Matt. 15:24). Scripture clearly teaches that
Jesus' own people rejected Him, and not the other way around (John
1:11; Mark 12:1-12).
Judging Alternative Viewpoints as
Anti-Semitic
Hagee's personal view regarding the Jewish
people has led him to render harsh and inaccurate statements about
individuals who differ with him on Israel's relationship with the
church. Those who believe the church is now the true Israel are, in
his opinion, guilty of spreading the message of anti-Semitism.18 And
along with amillennialism — "the view that when Christ returns,
eternity begins with no prior thousand-year (millennial) reign on
earth"19 — it is condemned as "ancient Godless heresy that
is again raging through the Church masquerading as truth."20
Whether Hagee realizes it or not, a number of
orthodox Christian denominations (especially in the Reformed and
Presbyterian traditions) espouse the very view he caricatures and
condemns. The view that there has always been and will only be one
people of God (namely, Israel) and that the church comprises that
faction of humanity (the new Israel, made up of both Jews and
non-Jews) is a feature of what is commonly known as Covenant theology
— a theological framework long recognized as biblical and in no way
anti-Semitic.21
According to Hagee, this purported
"heresy" goes by various names, including "Kingdom Now,
Kingdom Age, New Wave and New Age."22 He declares, however, that
such "Replacement theology" (so-called by Hagee because of
its view that the church is the new Israel or spiritual Israel —
though Hagee did not originate the term) is in reality an "old
heresy"23 and "idolatry."24 He also claims that
so-called "Replacement theologians are now carrying Hitler's
anointing and his message."25
Judging from the quotes and references he cites,
Hagee seems to have based his idea of "Replacement theology"
primarily on the teachings of Earl Paulk, the premiere advocate of
Kingdom theology.26 While Paulk can be criticized for any number of
unbiblical elements comprising Kingdom Theology (including positive
confession, the "fivefold ministry," and the "Manifest
Sons of God" doctrine),27 Hagee all but limits his attack on
Paulk's view that the church is spiritual Israel — a view that is,
in fact, orthodox.
Paul states, ". . . they are not all Israel
who are descended from Israel" (Rom. 9:6). Going on, he clarifies
that ". . . it is not the children of the flesh who are children
of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as
descendants" (v. 8). Paul explains that ". . . he is not a
Jew who is one outwardly; neither is circumcision that which is
outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and
circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the
letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God" (2:28-29;
cf. Phil. 3:3).
Clearly, then, believers in the One true God
are, at least in a spiritual sense, identified with Israel — as
God's chosen people. "Therefore," as Paul so aptly puts it,
"be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of
Abraham" (Gal. 3:7; cf. vv. 26-29; 6:15-16).28 Conversely,
Judaizers — those who rejected justification by faith by their
insistence that adherence to Jewish laws and practices is, at least in
part, necessary for salvation — are called the "synagogue of
Satan" (Rev. 2:9; 3:9).
"Is it important to be right on the Israel
question?" asks Hagee. "When you consider that being wrong
brings you under the curse of God and headed for eternal, everlasting
fire with the devil and his angels . . . it's important! Israel is not
a 'take it or leave it' subject. It is a life and death matter . . .
eternal life!"29
It is indeed unfortunate that Hagee would think
one's personal view of Israel can radically affect an individual's
eternal destiny. Nowhere does Scripture state that salvation hinges
upon a person's perspective of the new Israel. Hagee has no biblical
basis for his denouncement. By making such unwarranted statements,
Hagee winds up condemning many erstwhile believers, theologians, and
defenders of the faith — both past and present.
Though many may claim Hagee's preaching is
helping to spread the Word of God and building a bridge of unity
between the Christian and Jewish communities, the fact remains that
his message contains elements which lie in direct and serious
opposition to biblical truth.
NOTES
1John Hagee, Praise-A-Thon broadcast, Trinity
Broadcasting Network (TBN), 16 April 1993.
2John Hagee, Praise-A-Thon broadcast, TBN, 4
November 1992.
3Ibid.
4Hagee, Praise-A-Thon broadcast, 16 April 1993.
5For extended critiques of the so-called
"prosperity gospel," see Hank Hanegraaff, Christianity in
Crisis (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1993), 181-231; and D.
R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers,
1988), 170-83.
6Hagee, Praise-A-Thon broadcast, 4 November
1992. Avanzini, a leading figure in the Faith movement, focuses much
of his message around the theme of financial prosperity. He teaches,
among other things, that Jesus was a wealthy individual who "wore
designer clothes" and "had a nice house, a big house,"
while the apostle Paul "had the kind of money that people . . .
would block up justice to try to get a bribe out of old Paul"
(John Avanzini, Believer's Voice of Victory program, TBN, 20 January
1991).
7Detailed discussions can be found in
Hanegraaff, Christianity in Crisis, 61-102, 285-90; and McConnell, A
Different Gospel, 134-47.
8John Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?
(San Antonio, TX: Dominion Publishers, 1987), [174-75].
9Julia Duin, "San Antonio Fundamentalist
Battles Anti-Semitism," The Houston Chronicle, 30 April 1988, 1.
10Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?,
124-25, 127 (emphasis in original).
11John Hagee, personal faxed correspondence to
CRI, 18 October 1994, 3.
12Ibid., 6.
13To cement the use of the rhetorical
"no," these verses are supported by the Greek negative
particle me. Whenever the me particle is used in an interrogative
sentence, the response is negative (cf. 1 Cor. 9:8-10; 11:22;
14:29-30; Rom. 11:1). Had a "yes" — rather than a
"no" — response been intended, the Greek particle ou —
instead of me — would have appeared (cf. Rom. 9:21). For
documentation, see A. T. Robertson, A Grammar Of The Greek New
Testament In Light Of Historical Research (Nashville, TN: Broadman
Press, 1934),1173-74; and A. T. Robertson & W. Hersey Davis, A New
Short Grammar Of The Greek Testament, 10th ed. (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker Book House, 1977), 390.
14Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 61
(emphasis in original).
15Ibid., 67-68 passim; cf. 69, 72.
16For further discussions on the messianic
identity of Jesus, see Robert L. Reymond, Jesus, Divine Messiah
(Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1990); and
Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976 [orig. 1886]).
17See, for example, Leon Morris, The Gospel
According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co./Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 427; R. C. H. Lenski, The
Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1964), 632-33; and D. A. Carson, The Expositor's
Bible Commentary, ed. by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas, 12
vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 8:374-75.
18Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 1.
19Robert Lightner, The Last Days Handbook
(Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990), 22. Quoted in
Lightner's book is amillennialist J. G. Voss, who defines the
amillennial position as follows: "Amillennialism is that view of
the last things which holds the Bible does not predict a 'millennium'
or period of world-wide peace and righteousness on this earth before
the end of the world. At the second coming of Christ, the resurrection
and judgment will take place, followed by the eternal order of things
— the absolute, perfect kingdom of God, in which there will be no
sin, suffering, nor death" (72). For presentations and critiques
of the various options regarding the millennium by theologians who
take different sides on the issue, see Robert G. Clouse, ed. The
Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press, 1977).
20Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 1.
21For an exposition of this particular view, see
Edmund P. Clowney, "The New Israel," A Guide to Biblical
Prophecy (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1989), 207-20. Paul E.
Leonard presents the opposite point of view in the article following
Clowney's, titled "Two Peoples of God" (221-30), though he
does not classify the former as anti-semitic. For a detailed treatment
of Covenant theology, see O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the
Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.,
1980).
22Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 1.
23Ibid., 74. Hagee quotes Ignatius of Antioch
(c. A.D. 30-107) as a teacher of this "old heresy."
Ironically, Ignatius was one of the earliest defenders of orthodoxy
noted for his forceful responses against false teachings. He supported
apostolic authority and became the bishop of Antioch, one of the
leading churches in the first century (cf. Acts 11:19-29; 13:1-3). His
view that the church was the new Israel would thus have been a
teaching passed on to him by the apostles. Ignatius's writings are
reprinted and translated in J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harner, eds. The
Apostolic Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 97-162;
and Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante- Nicene
Fathers, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1985), 1:45-131.
24Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 86.
25Ibid., 132.
26Ibid., 1, 59, 76-77, 105.
27A reprint of the two-part Christian Research
Journal article,"The Gospel According to Paulk: A Critique of
'Kingdom Theology,'" is available through CRI (order part
#DK-150).
28Commenting on Galatians 6:16, Bible scholar
Alan Cole writes: "This would identify the new group, the 'third
race of men' of whom the Church fathers delighted to talk — neither
Jew nor Gentile, but Christian — with God's Israel. This is often
put bluntly as 'the Church is the new Israel'" (The Epistle of
Paul to the Galatians [Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1965], 183). Cf. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the
Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1953), 227; and R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul's
Epistle to the Galatians, to the Ephesians and to the Philippians
(Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 321.
29Hagee, Should Christians Support Israel?, 169.
CRI, P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
92688 Phone (949) 858-6100 and Fax (949) 858-6111
|