Theology of Suffering

After reading “The Mystery of Suffering: How Should I Respond?”, I have a clearer understanding of how Jesus dealt with the suffering that was present in his life. Kenneth R. Overberg’s first point is “Jesus resisted and eliminated suffering.” In grade school, one of the main topics that we learned about in religion class was the healing power of Jesus. We read countless stories about Jesus helping the sick and suffering, just as Matthew describes in his Gospel. Overberg’s second point is “Jesus rejected suffering as a punishment for sin.” Although the Hebrew tradition teaches that suffering is punishment for sin, Jesus proclaims otherwise. He rejects the idea that people are made to suffer for their sins. As Jesus healed the blind man, he tells everyone that the man had not sinned. The third point, “Jesus trusted a compassionate, present God,” explains how Jesus preached forgiveness in his parables. Even as Jesus experienced suffering himself, he remained faithful, and trusted God.

The two traditional interpretations of Jesus’ suffering, death, and resurrection are very different. The first interpretation comes from Jewish practices about sacrifice and atonement. The Hebrew people poured the blood of a sacrificed animal on the altar as a symbol of people’s desire for reconciliation and union with God. St. Augustine and St. Anselm’s ideas describe atonement for sin. This first interpretation views God as angry and demanding. The alternative interpretation of the life and death of Jesus is orthodox and rooted in the Christian tradition. This view is that the whole purpose of creation is for the Incarnation. God is not thought of as angry, as in the first interpretation, but is gracious and loving of his creation. My personal preference is “A Theology of Incarnation.” I do not view God as angry and demanding, but instead as caring and understanding. I believe that God desires to share his love and watch over everyone.