Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 / Hebrews 10:16–25 / John 18:1 – 19:42
This is the written version of the homily
given at Flohr’s Evangelical Lutheran Church (ELCA) in McKnightstown,
Pennsylvania on Good Friday, April 3, 2026, by Fr. Gene Tucker, Interim Pastor.
“MAKING SENSE OF GOOD FRIDAY”
(Homily texts: Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12
& John 18:1 – 19:42)
Since
the beginning of Holy Week last Sunday, Palm Sunday, we’ve been looking at the
events that took place during this most holy time of the year from the
perspective of the ways in which our Lord Jesus Christ undertook to be a
servant to all, and yet, to be Lord of all.
Now
that we’ve arrived at Good Friday, this perspective will serve us well, as we
examine our Lord’s death on a Roman cross. For it is in this sort of a death
that we see the Lord’s self-emptying love for humanity. And yet, His lordship
is also apparent (in more than just the posting of the sign which was placed
above His head on the top of the cross, that sign which proclaimed “Jesus of
Nazareth, King of the Jews”).
In
truth, we cannot count the importance of the Good Friday events without keeping
the Easter reality in view, for the events of Good Friday weren’t in that day
time and place, all that unusual (victims dying on Roman crosses probably happened
quite regularly…it’s even possible to imagine that there may have been regularly-scheduled
days for crucifixions to take place). It is the Easter event that makes Good
Friday important. The reverse is also true: It is the Good Friday event that
makes the Easter event important.
That
said, let’s attempt to keep our focus on the Good Friday sequence, and try not
look ahead to Easter.
How,
then, do we make sense of what happened to our Lord on Good Friday? What makes
His death so important (and different from all other deaths of victims on Roman
crosses)?
For
answers to this question, I think we need to turn to theology to understand
what happened to the relationship of God to humankind as the Lord’s lifeblood
ebbed away.
Theology
(which is, essentially, the study of God’s nature, and God’s interaction with human
beings) can shed some light on the importance of Jesus’ death, and the benefits
that flow from that death.
With
this understanding in mind, let’s consider some of the ways in which the
Christian faith has come to understand Good Friday in all of its importance,
and in many of the ways in which its ramifications continue to reverberate in
our hearts and minds today.
Here
are some of the ways Christians have come to regard the importance of Jesus’
death:
Ransom: This is a view that is supported by
Holy Scripture, for the word “ransom” appears in the New Testament in
connection with Jesus’ sacrifice. (See Matthew 2028, Mark 10:45 and I
Corinthians 6:20.)
These
days, most people are familiar with the word “ransom” in connection with the
word “ransomware”, which is a malicious attack on a computer system whereby
someone manages to infect and corrupt a computer system. To free up the system,
the attacker demands payment for the system to be unlocked.
In a
similar way, Jesus’ death pays the price needed in order to free humanity from
bondage to sin.[1]
Jesus’
death as an example: This approach maintains that Jesus’
willingness to undergo such a horrific death shows us, by example, what true
servanthood looks like.[2] (See
I Peter 2:21 and I John 2:6 for scriptural support for this approach.)
Jesus’
death as the supreme example of God’s love:
Perhaps stemming from some of the Lord’s comments about the depth of
love He has for those who come to Him in faith, this view understands Jesus’
death as the supreme example of the sort of love God has for each of us.[3] (Biblical references which support this view include Romans 5:8, II Corinthians
5:17–19, Philippians 2:5–11 and Colossians 4:24.)
The
Penal Substitution Theory:
This view maintains that each of us, as sinners, are required to pay the price
for our sin. But we have nothing with which to pay the penalty. In our place,
Jesus takes up and bears our sins on the cross, paying the penalty that was
ours to pay. The Lord is able to do this because He is without sin, and is –
therefore – free of the lack of resources with which to pay the penalty that is
ours to bear.
A good
example of this is the illustration of a person who is brought before a court.
The judge pronounces the sentence and the amount of the fine. But the guilty
person says they have nothing with which to pay the fine. So the judge steps
down from the bench, removes his/her robe, and pays the fine for the convicted
person.[4] Our
Old Testament reading from Isaiah 52 supports this view.
(Additional
scriptural support for this approach may be found in John 11:50-52, Romans 5:8–9, Titus 2:14 and I Peter 3:18.)
Human
sin dishonors God, Jesus restores God’s rightful honor:
A view that came into prominence with St. Anselm, Archbishop of
Canterbury (1033 – 1109), reflects the feudal society in which he lived. This
understanding maintains that human rebelliousness dishonors God. Jesus’ death
acknowledges this dishonor and restores a rightful relationship between God and
humankind. (Biblical support for this view may be found in John 10:18.)
The
examples given here aren’t the only understandings that have come to acceptance
as the Church’s life continues through time.
A
question which might linger in our own understanding, given the times in which
we live, might be to ascertain which of the views outlined above would gain
acceptance among people today, and especially among non-believers. My guess
would be that many, if not most, people might say that Christ’s example of
servanthood, and the example of His love, would be the most widely accepted
views.
As we
go about sharing the Good News (Gospel) of God in Christ with others, and
especially with those we know who have not yet come to faith, it might be good
for us to remember what meaning would resonate most readily with others as we
share that Good News.
AMEN.
[1] The third century theologian, Origen
(c.285 – c.253 AD), maintained this view.
[2] Peter Abelard (1079 – 1142) was a key proponent of this view.
[3] Peter Abelard also maintained this view, which, I think, is somewhat
like the view that Jesus’ death is the best example we have of servanthood in
action.
[4] The sixteenth century reformer John Calvin (1509 – 1564) maintained this view.
