Tag Archives: Messiah

HAGEE’S ERRORS ON ISRAEL (2)

Books, Dispensationalism, Israel November 26, 2014 Comments: 2

Hagee 2This is Part 2 of a three part review of John Hagee’s error-filled book on Israel. That book should be avoided at all costs, even half-priced. John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible’s Mandate for Supporting the Jewish State (Lake Mary, Flo.: FrontLine, 2007).

Again space constraints forbid my fully engaging his many theological errors, but I must present those that form the very purpose of his book. His exegetical stumblings and historical confusions lead inexorably to these serious theological errors. Six keys errors I will highlight are Hagee’s claims that:

1. Jesus did not present himself as the Messiah.

Hagee writes: “Not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament … says Jesus came to be the Messiah” (p. 136). “The Jews were not rejecting Jesus as Messiah; it was Jesus who was refusing to be the Messiah to the Jews” (p. 140; cp. 145). In fact, he wrongly argues that “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”? (p. 137). Continue reading →

DISPENSATIONALISM AND DANIEL’S GAP (Part 2)

Daniel, Dispensationalism November 25, 2013 Comments: 3

PMT 2013-031 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Shake handsI am continuing a critique of dispensationalism’s gap theory for Daniel’s Seventy Weeks prophecy. In my last posting I presented four of their arguments with my rebuttals. I will continue now with the fifth and final dispensational argument.

Fifth, the order within the prophecy: “In the record of the prophecy, the destruction of the city [v. 26b] is placed before the last week [v. 27a].” 1 Since this occurs in A.D. 70, we must allow a gap to account for it.

This argument overlooks the peculiarities of Hebrew poetic style. Oriental expression often confounds the Occidental concern for chronological succession; the Western framework may not be foisted upon the passage. This “revelational pattern” 2 allows a parallel rehearsal and expansion of the topic without requiring actual succession in time. Even classic dispensationalists understand that some prophetic passages do not flow chronologically. 3 A better understanding of the relation between verses 26 and 27 is given above. Continue reading →