Why the Jews Rejected Jesus - Free EBooks Library

January 2002 after it was noticed in an Italian book store.
Isaiah 53
Klinghoffer then goes to work on the famous passage of Isaiah 53, which he says
“has probably been adduced more often and with greater conviction in support of Jesus’s
claim than any other passage” (p. 164). First Klinghoffer claims that neither the title
“Messiah” nor “king” nor “son of David” nor “any other expression that would point to a
messianic interpretation” appear in the passage. Of course, this objection only shows that
when such expressions do appear in Scripture, Klinghoffer should perform due diligence
and give them a messianic interpretation, but rarely does. As we noted, the word “Messiah”
appears in Dan. 9:25-26, but Klinghoffer quickly tries to arrest any hint that it might apply
to a savior, much less Christ, choosing rather, to say that it refers to “an egregious sinner,”
all based on his fallacious lexical analysis of the Hebrew word karet. But let’s take
Klinghoffer’s criterion of missing names and titles to heart. The word “God” does not
appear in the book of Esther, yet Esther is the basis for one of the highest Jewish holydays,
Purim, a feast to which Klinghoffer refers on page 53. Perhaps Klinghoffer should reject
that holyday for the same reason he rejects the divine identity of the “servant” in Isaiah 53
– a missing name. The fact remains, Klinghoffer himself said that “scripture is cryptic” (p.
24), so it should come as no surprise that Isaiah might be a little more cryptic in chapter 53
than Klinghoffer is willing to admit. It would be better than resigning himself to conclude
Isaiah 53 is “a most peculiar way for a writer to compose his work” (p. 167).
Irrespective of the cryptic element of Isaiah 53, Klinghoffer prefers the
interpretation of Rabbi Solomon bar Isaac (aka Rashi, 1040-1105), i.e., that the “servant
was none other than the Jewish people,” citing passages such as Is 41:8 (“Israel, my
servant”) or Is 44:2 (“My servant, Jacob”). But the issue is not whether these particular
passages refer to Israel (since they clearly do) but whether the “servant” of Isaiah 53 refers
to Israel. Whereas Isaiah 53 does not specify “Messiah” or “son of David,” by the same token
it doesn’t specify “Israel” either, yet Israel is conspicuously mentioned before and after
chapter 53 (e.g., Is 52:12; 54:5). Obviously, Isaiah is avoiding the name “Israel” in chapter
53 as much as he is avoiding the name “Messiah” or “son of David” in Isaiah 52 and 54.
Klinghoffer tries to make a big issue of the fact that in Isaiah 53 many words are
chosen which portray the servant as “sick” or a “victim of disease.” Although Klinghoffer
agrees that such minutia “may seem like hairsplitting,” nevertheless, he concludes from his
word study that “it’s natural to assume that Isaiah is speaking about a sick person, which
Jesus was not” (p. 206). It would be “natural” only if the Hebrew words chosen referred
exclusively to sickness. In Is 53:3, for example, the description: “a man of suffering,
accustomed to infirmity” is not in a context of physical maladies but of personal rejection
and mental anguish, since vr. 3 reads: “He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of
suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned,
and we held him in no esteem” (NAB). Hence, it is no surprise that “infirmity” is a Hebrew
word (hlj) that is frequently used to refer to mental anguish or grief.31 It is used again in
Is 53:10: “the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity” or “grief.” What better crushing
in grief could there be than when Jesus was in the Garden of Gethsemane pleading to the
Father for another way, under such strain that his sweat poured out like great drops of
blood, and which eventually led to the scourging at the pillar and the walk to Calvary? In
fact, all the instances of Hebrew words that Klinghoffer questions in Isaiah 53 (except for