Today’s first reading, taken from the book of the prophet Isaiah, describes God’s Suffering Servant in terms of the theology of atonement in Hebrew religion. In the Hebrew Scriptures, atonement is somewhat, but not entirely, similar to repentance in Christian theology. The Suffering Servant in Isaiah’s prophecies suffers, not to pay a price God exacts for sin but to allow others to avoid suffering. The faithful Servant of God suffers in order to avoid sin in his own life and to negate the effects of sin in the lives of others. 

This Scriptural notion of atonement was altered significantly by Christian theologians in the early Middle Ages. The atonement theories of the medieval theologians portrayed Jesus’ sacrificial death as punishment inflicted vicariously by God on human nature. The difference between medieval Christian atonement theories and Scriptural atonement might seem subtle but it has profound implications. 

The Suffering Servant in Isaiah’s prophecies avoided sin by not refusing to accept the burdens placed on him; his righteous act translated into righteousness for those associated with him because of his fidelity to God and generosity to his fellows. There was a price paid by the Suffering Servant – a price he chose to pay rather than a price imposed by an angry God. 

It is the nature of the price paid that makes the crucial difference. The Scriptural notion of atonement was based on the practice of ransoming captives taken in war or taken as revenge. In ancient Hebrew culture, the nearest male relative of a captive person was responsible to safeguard the captive’s return to family. The Suffering Servant in Isaiah’s prophecies acts as kin to sinners by willingly suffering to ensure their safe release from the bonds of sin. 

The Suffering Servant’s trials and ordeals weren’t imposed on him; rather, he chose to endure suffering as an act of faithfulness to the ones he judged to be his kin. Scriptural atonement isn’t the act of paying compensation for a crime; it is an act of covenant fidelity. There is often a price associated with fidelity, but it is a price that sanctifies both the one who pays and one who benefits. 

As I said above, the nature of the price paid is crucial. Medieval atonement theories portrayed Jesus’ suffering and death as the only adequate means to placate God’s righteous anger about humanity’s sins. These theories make sense from a legalistic point of view but not from a theological point of view. If God demands a price of blood for humanity’s sins and then pays the price with the blood of God Incarnate, the act of redemption never reaches beyond God’s own interior life. If, on the other hand, God paid a price of blood in order to ransom God’s People out of captivity to sin, then God is glorified by the generosity of God’s Son, and God’s People are redeemed by the Son’s fidelity. 

The medieval atonement theories are not able to portray salvation as anything more than a vicarious act of satisfying a debt. The Scriptural notion of atonement reveals salvation as God’s act of faithfulness and mercy expressed for humanity’s direct benefit. 

All of the above makes possible a simple assessment of Jesus’ passion and death: Jesus was unjustly condemned and executed either to make us very sentimental about his character or to offer us the possibility of raising our character above its baser tendencies. The former promises fleeting emotion; the latter promises eternal salvation.