This is a review I wrote a year ago, in the style of Thomas Macaulay.
Reviewed:
Hagee, John. In Defense of Israel. Lake Mary: Frontline, 2007. Print.
Also mentioned:
Hagee, John. Jerusalem Countdown. Lake Mary: Frontline, 2005. Print.
This book has greatly disappointed us. We had expected to find, at the very least, a sensible and humane reading of the history of Israel, and a useful explanation of the situation in the Middle East. Instead, we have found it filled with the most absurd claims and misinterpretations, of pernicious theories and misreadings, and over all, the pervading spirit of the enraged fanatic, who believes without a reason and hates without a provocation. Therefore, to do our part in defense of just principles, we have purposed to write this essay for the purpose of showing these manifold errors, lest that the loftiness of the titles and the sacred authority invoked by these works should deceive their readers into believing, what to us, and worse still, to the very Holy Scriptures to which Dr. Hagee defers, are flagrant errors.
John Hagee, we hardly need say, is the senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Texas, and professes himself to be a "preacher, Bible scholar, and author", according to the back cover of the book before us. We know no more of him than what is vouchsafed on the covers of these two books, and what is revealed in his writing of these two books, Jerusalem Countdown and In Defense of Israel, in which he distinguishes himself by his zeal for the Jews, not merely to love them and treat them as we ourselves would wish to be treated, but to vindicate them of every crime, proclaim their accomplishments as far greater than reality, and exalt them above all other men. He chooses his thesis: the Jews must be perfect, and forthwith proceeds to prove that this is so, at whatever cost to facts, sense, and as aforesaid, the Bible, of which he professes himself a scholar. This desire to prove the Jews blameless and beyond reproach, a desire amounting to a ruling passion, has, as might be expected, led the author into a number of fearful errors. These may be divided into three categories: major errors that make the reader marvel at their scope, lesser errors which are still incredible, and minor flaws which might be overlooked in an otherwise good book, but in this, become the proverbial last straw.
The manner and style of these two books before us is very striking. They are written in the style of a fanatic, in phrases resembling those for which the author reproaches others. Over all is the spirit of the fanatic, in whom a reasonable and sensible idea becomes a ruling passion, to be carried to the uttermost in spite of all obstacles, including that of reason, good sense, and in this case, the Holy Scriptures. It might be supposed that anyone venturing enough to avow such opinions as these would approach his audience gently and humbly, lest both his tone and his flagrant errors drive them away; or at least, we might think that a scholar should treat with his subject with the academic reserve and formal tone which is both dignified and appropriate when concerned with a serious topic. But we must credit Dr. Hagee with boldness in his cause, at least. The tone which he adopts in these two books, most particularly in the Defense of Israel, far from the ingratiating manner of a skilled speaker expounding radical ideas, or even from the dignified scholar's voice, with its technical vocabulary and scores of long words, is one of burning fury, better felt than described, but employed in nearly every part of these two books. "I do well to be angry," seems to be his attitude toward all that he perceives as setting itself against his beloved Jews, including Egyptians, Rome, pagans, Ottomans, Nazis, Russians, and the Christian Church as a whole, St. Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Martin Luther, whom he hates most bitterly of all.
As to material, both books are so similar, up to the second book borrowing whole paragraphs from the first, that In Defense of Israel may well be regarded as a later edition of Jerusalem Countdown, the volume much condensed and the errors greatly worsened. For instance, in Jerusalem Countdown, Dr. Hagee is content to say that the Jews have not yet accepted Christ as Messiah, being judicially blinded to his identity. In the Defense, he announces that Jesus is not the Messiah at all, since the Jews can do no wrong, and rejecting the Messiah would plainly be a great evil. This, he bases on nothing else, so far as we can see, than the idea that the Messiah which the Jews sought was the only Messiah there could be, and no one could be who did not answer to this notion. He informs us that "the Jews were rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews", and demands how "can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?" [136]
Really, we know of no better way to refute these absurdities that to state them. Dr. Hagee, it appears, has much neglected his Hebrew education, since, in fact, 'Christ' and 'Messiah' have the same meaning, one being Greek, and the other Hebrew, for 'anointed' or 'anointed one.' Indeed, Dr. Hagee admits this very thing, but---we know not how---thinks it is a proof of his own theory. Nor is this the only occasion where it seems that any person with two eyes and the ability to read would have the better of this author. In proof of Jesus' denial of being the Christ, Dr. Hagee cites Mark 8:
And he saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. And he charged them that they should tell no man of him. [29-30]
Now the meaning of this passage is so very plain, it can hardly be necessary for us to add anything further. Indeed, if Jesus was not the Messiah, and meant, according to the Defense, to deny being so by these words, why would there have been any need for the admonition to tell no one? Take, for instance, Superman confirming his true identity to a friend or confidant, while strictly requiring that they should not blazon it abroad. Does this mean he is not Superman anymore? Or if a secret agent should require secrecy from those who know his true identity, is he not a secret agent at all? Certainly not. But this is Dr. Hagee's logic in arguing against Jesus' Messiah-ship.
As if it were not enough for one who titles himself a "Bible scholar" to propagate error like this, we proceed to the next claim in expiation of the Jews, not venturing to state whether it be as bad, or worse than the first, but giving it in Dr. Hagee's own words:
One of those deadly New Testament myths is that the Jews killed Jesus, yet no justification can be found in the New Testament to support this lie.
Again, "Matthew states that the Jews as a people had nothing to do with the political conspiracy against Jesus."
He proceeds to quote Matthew 26:3-4, Mark 11:18, and Luke 22:2, in order to argue the scribes and Pharisees feared to strike against Jesus because of the people's response, and declares there was "a crucifixion plot...carried out by the high priest Caiaphas...a political appointment of Herod, who was himself directly appointed by Rome," before filling five pages with arguments and quotations intended to credit Caiaphas, Herod, and Rome with the crucifixion of Christ, and vindicate the Jews not only of all guilt, but of all suspicion, and all knowledge of this crime against the Son of God, as Dr. Hagee pronounces the Jews "were for the most part ignorant of, the events that led up to the arrest, trial, and conviction of Jesus Christ" [125]. The author has filled eight pages with arguments and quotations in defense of the Jews' innocence, and it would be possible for us to fill as many, perhaps more, in refuting them, but we consider that on this occasion, we can do no better than to defer to much weightier accounts than our own. The Apostle Paul:
For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost. (1 Thess. 2:14-16, KJV)
No commentary is necessary for this passage, any more than for the next, spoken by the Apostle Peter: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2:36, KJV)
Also,
Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Acts 2: 22-23, KJV)
Was not Peter present for the arrest, trial, and conviction of Jesus Christ? Was he not one of the eyewitnesses to which Dr. Hagee refers us? It is also worthwhile to note that this was on the occasion of Pentecost, when "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost..." (Acts 2:4a, KJV). Now it might be supposed that these apostles and witnesses could be mistaken if the spoke on their own account, but it is only too plain that Paul, as the author of First Thessalonians, or Peter on Pentecost, did not speak on their own account, or from their own beliefs and prejudices, but as "the Spirit gave them utterance." And to these accounts, we feel that we can add no more of importance. Doubtless, Dr. Hagee, being no stranger to the use of sophistry, could find arguments and reasons, however flimsy they might be, to deny something that is plain as words can make it, as every objector can if he is clever enough or stubborn enough to devise them.
It is no great surprise that one whose partiality could lead him into seriously uttering such nonsense as that mentioned above, should fall into many other errors in the way, all inspired by a wish that a certain group of people who, however excellent, are subject to the same infirmities as other men, may have a fairer reputation than they deserve. The most glaring example is seen in Chapter 8 of the Defense, when the author calmly announces that, "one of the largest contributions from the Jewish people was made four thousand years ago...the concept of monotheism..." [102]. If these words are to be taken at their face value, we must suppose that Dr. Hagee believes that there was no God whatsoever, until the Jews came into being as a people and imagined one, as they must have in order to deserve any credit for the contribution of monotheism to the world. One might as well say a man falling from the top of a building contributed gravity to the world. This idea also has tremendous and deadly implications for Hagee's thesis that the Jews are perfect. Carried to its logical conclusion, if the Jews contributed the concept of monotheism to the world, and there was nothing at all before it, their history must be as follows: they invented the idea of a single holy God, then proceeded to conquer Canaan, murder its inhabitants, spoil its cities, and claim it for themselves under the guise that the God they had imagined had given it to them. These crafty and clever dreamers then devised the known canon of Scripture about the things their one God had done and commanded, including in its pages dire warnings against deceit, hypocrisy, robbery, and murder, incidentally being simultaneously guilty of all the crimes listed above.
We earnestly hope that we have mistaken Dr. Hagee in this matter---that what he intends to say is not that the Jews invented monotheism. But we fear that such gross error is not out of keeping with the author's character. In the same chapter, he lists twenty-two Jewish persons and their contributions to society. In this list, he writes, in all apparent seriousness: "William James Sidis: smartest person on earth, with IQ of 250-300," [101]. There is no such person on earth with an IQ this high, and if there was, we would be required to take his word for it, since there would certainly be no one of equal intelligence to test his claim. Sigmund Freud also makes an appearance in this list of remarkable Jewish persons and their contributions to the world, in company with DaVinci, Anne Frank, Jonas Salk, and Leonard Bernstein. We would highly suggest that Dr. Hagee undertake a study of Freud's work, and decide to his own satisfaction if the false, silly, and licentious ideas, now mostly dis-proven, which formed the basis of Freud's philosophy, constitute a worthy contribution to the knowledge and prosperity of man.
But this is no surprise. We have perhaps never encountered any other author with the gift of self-contradiction in such measure. Dr. Hagee not only contradicts his own statements, but manages to believe that he has just supported his claims by doing so. The most notable example of this appears in Chapter 13, in which Hagee undertakes to prove that Jews are not free moral agents, able to choose to serve either God or the devil, but Gentiles are able to choose. Likewise, Jews alone are divinely chosen, and Gentiles are not. As if this all were not extraordinary enough, it is supposed that Joshua's words: "Choose this day whom ye will serve" is a proof of free will for Gentiles! As everyone knows, these words were spoken by Joshua, an Israelite, to Israelites, the very people whom Dr. Hagee supposes to have no free will.
To enumerate all the flaws in these two books might well require a volume in itself, but we will endeavor to mention some of the more glaring ones. Dr. Hagee tells us that Jesus' words, "My kingdom is not of this world" were spoken to Jews asking him to be their Messiah. These remarkable words were in answer to Pilate's question, "Art thou the King of the Jews?"
In Chapter 8, he says that "Before Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants formed the nation of Israel, the rest of the world's civilizations were trapped in polytheism, the belief in multiple gods" [102]. Does Dr. Hagee believe that before Abraham, no one had ever heard of the idea of one God? Yet we read, "And the LORD spake unto Noah...And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him" [Gen 7:1a; 5,KJV]. And of Abel, "And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:" [Gen. 4:4b, KJV]. If Dr. Hagee means to say that Israel was the first civilization to serve the true God, this is quite correct. But a worse way of trying to say this can hardly be imagined than the version we have before us.
Nor is the manner of writing in these two books any of the best, and supplies any number of amusing sentences such as those we subjoin:
The fate of Hitler and the Nazis given in Jerusalem Countdown is as thus: "footnotes in the boneyard of human history" [201]. This is a mixed metaphor. Correctly, the first part must be "unmarked graves" (or a similar phrase), or the second part must be the "book of human history" (or a similar phrase).
We are also informed, on the same page that, "[Hitler] shot himself and ordered his fanatical lunatic Nazi followers to soak his body with fifty gallons of gas and then burn him to an ash" [201]. From this sequence of events, the reader must suppose Hitler shot himself, then, when this failed to produce the desired results, hastily ordered his followers to burn him in the hope that he would die on the second attempt.
This may also serve as an amusing instance of Dr. Hagee's preference for multiplying adjectives. The "poisonous stream of venom" poured forth by the early Church fathers may also stand as an example. It may be useful for Dr. Hagee to note that while two adjectives to describe one thing may be necessary in some cases, it is quite superfluous to use one to describe what is perfectly obvious already, or when both mean the same thing and one could have served just as well as the two.
Let it be understood, however, that we are by no means sympathetic to the odious vice of anti-Semitism, in whatever form it may appear. It has no more place in the heart of a Christian, or of any reasonable and sensible person, than the hatred of any other people and nation has place there. The offenses of the Jews will not be expiated by hatred and violence, nor have we not so learned of Him who said "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and prayed for his enemies on the Cross. These books might have been much shortened if Dr. Hagee had been content to provide us with this reasoning for loving the Jews, and spared himself the strenuous exertions which he has undertaken in these two books, in order to prove them not only perfect, but exalted above all other men.Nor do we find it impossible to agree that for America, supporting the nation of Israel is wise and sensible. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and a friend to the United States. As with other sovereign states, it has the right to defend itself, to declare war, enter treaties and alliances, and ensure the welfare of its citizens.
Much more might be said on this subject. However, that we be not further tedious to our readers, we must stop. In closing, we must say of this author that we are actuated by no personal malice toward him, though we greatly regret that a man so obviously in the wrong should occupy a role of such influence over the minds of his congregants.