Briefly, I want to share with you some of my cogitations on another of the Biblical men named “Simon.” And right off the bat we are confronted with a lot of nothing. There is very little that we know about him. He is mentioned in only three scriptures – all in the same context. Mark 15:21 – “And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.” Luke 23:26 – “And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after Jesus.” Simon is one of several people who have been immortalized by a brief contact with the Saviour. And since he is named in all three of synoptic gospels we not only have the right to examine him, but we have the obligation as well – whether or not there is enough material for a real sermon.
My first step in studying Simon was to blend our three references into one all-inclusive statement. This is the Gospel according to David, chapter 20, verse 32. If you like, you can turn to any of the real gospels and pay attention to make sure I’ve included every thing. “And as they led our Lord out, they laid hold and compelled Simon, a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus, who was passing by on his way into Jerusalem from the country, to bear Jesus’ cross after him.”
As I meditated on these verses I marveled at three things: First, how little we are specifically told. Second, how much people assume about this man – without basis in fact. And third, how much we can glean from the scripture without it specifically telling us.
I’m just going to break my amalgamated verse apart in order to highlight and apply what I see in it.
“And as they led our Lord out …”
The time was mid-morning, after the Lord had spent an harrowing night before the priests and Romans. He had not slept in at least 27 to 30 hours, and even then it was probably a light sleep. Prior to that, the preceding week had been extremely emotional. He had walked down from Galilee, through Jericho and all the events in that. He had met people like Zacchaues and Bartimaus. A couple of days earlier Jesus enjoyed the tumultuous entry into Jerusalem, amid all the “hosannas” and “hallelujahs.” In the hours before our scripture, there had been the Passover meal and then Lord’s supper. There had been the exposure of Judas as the traitor, and his departure into the night. And then just hours before this verse, there had been the extremely difficult time in Gethsemane. Then came the interrogations before the priests and Pilate. And of course there were several, severe beatings. “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.” “His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” – Isaiah 52 and 53. The Lord Jesus by this time was probably exhausted, perhaps near collapse or even death. Some commentators insist that He had fallen beneath the weight of the cross, and that he couldn’t carry it another step. The Bible does not say that, but without being dogmatic, that is a possibility.
This verse may have begun just outside the governor’s palace. But more probably it was as the procession was moving along or heading out of the city. Since it was a part of the ordinary process of crucifixion to have the condemned man carry his own cross, we can assume that the Lord Jesus was physically unable to carry it all the way to Golgotha. Or even if He might have been able, it was going to take more time than the Romans wanted to spend. The process needed to be quickened.
In Stephen’s interpretation of Isaiah he said, “(Christ) was LED as a sheep to the slaughter.”
“They laid hold and compelled Simon …”
“Simon“ is the Greek form of the name “Simeon.” And the first Simeon we meet in the Word of God is the illustrious second son of Jacob. This is a good, famous and very common Hebrew name. There are nine men in the New Testament who carry the name “Simon” – Peter, Simon Zelotes – the Canaanite, Judas Iscariot’s father, Simon Magus, and Simon the Tanner. There is Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7, Simon the Leper, and Simon the son of Cleopas Then finally there is Simon of Cyrene.
Now, when the Bible says that they “laid hold and compelled” Simon – it means that he was reluctant to help. The Roman soldiers grabbed him as he passed by. And the Greek word “compelled” was relatively special. It was a foreign word, coming out of the Persian language. It speaks about the way that royal messengers could demand and get fresh horses or camels in order to complete the king’s business. Perhaps the word “commandeered” might be an appropriate substitution here. This man didn’t volunteer to carry the cross – he was drafted. It was a scandalous thing to carry a cross like this, even if it was for another person. No Roman or Jew would do it unless it was at the point of a bayonette, and that seems to be the case here.
“He was a Cyrenian.”
Cyrene was one of the Pentapolis of Libya. It was one of the major cities of the ancient North African country of Libya. That was before it was filled with Muslims and governed by Momar Kadaffi.
Now here is one of the curious traditions about Simon. There are many people who repeat the old tale that this was a black man. But the people of North African are not black – the Egyptians aren’t black. Furthermore “Simon” is the Greek form of a Jewish name. As we see in Acts 2:10 there were many, many Jews living in Cyrene, who traveled to Jerusalem for the great feasts such as the Passover and Pentecost. “And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes.”
In Acts 11 when the Jerusalem church was scattered through persecution, one of the natural places that they spread was to Cyrene, because of the Jewish population there. “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus” – Acts 11:19-20.
I seriously doubt that Simon was a black man – he was most likely a North African Jew.
“He was the father of Alexander and Rufus …”
The fact that Simon is named for us indicates that the people of the early church, knew this man. That his sons are identified indicates that people knew who they were, and that they were his sons. There is a man named “Rufus” who is referred to by name in the church at Rome. There are several “Alexanders” in the New Testament, some of which might have been this man. But it seems apparent that the people of the early church knew all three of these men.
Because of that, some commentaries surmise that Simon was already a disciple of Christ. They think that the Romans grabbed him – as one of Christ’s own people – and made him carry cross. Some think that Jesus asked and persuaded him to take up the cross. But I can’t see any reason to make that assumption. In fact, the situation seems to suggest that they forced an unwilling passer-by into carrying out a very loathsome task. Some of those who think Simon was a Christian, suggest the Romans still had to force him because he didn’t want to encourage the crucifixion in any way. But again, all this is speculation, and I just don’t see it.
But, it does seem he DID eventually become a child of God, and he led his family to follow the Lord as well. What I imagine – my speculation – is that this Jewish visitor – in the city for the Passover – this stranger – was compelled to carry the cross. When he got to the top of Golgotha, he stayed to watch the spectacle. He became convicted of what he saw – later sought out more of the facts – and was eventually brought to Christ. I can’t be sure that this is the case, but it’s my guess.
“Simon, who was passing by on his way in to Jerusalem from the country …”
I had to laugh as I read some of the thoughts of good men about this. Someone suggested that this black African was coming into the city, loaded down with wood for someone’s Passover meal. Interesting, but I don’t read those words in here at all.
As I say, he was probably a visiting Jew, who, like the Saviour Himself, was forced to find lodging in one of the villages outside of Jerusalem. Yes, he was coming into the city in order to enjoy the Passover later that day, but there is no reason to insist that he was carrying wood. In fact, if I was a Roman soldier and I saw two people, one carrying a load, and another who wasn’t, I would compel the man without the burden, rather than the one with the burden.
“They compelled him to bear Jesus’ cross after him.”
Where is the idea here that Jesus bore the cross-member and Simon the larger, heavier part of the cross? I can see where someone might suggest that Simon was forced to help carry the cross while it still was draped over the shoulder of the Saviour. I can imagine both of them working together, but that is probably not what happened. I see no reason for the cross to be in two pieces anyway. I know that there are arguments about the shape of the cross, but I think that our common image is correct. And it appears that it was complete as it was brought out of the city. In fact, in all likelihood it had been used to execute others before the Saviour.
By the way, where are the other two victims in all of this?
I think that the Saviour was too weak to carry the cross at all, and this man was compelled to carry it. This in no way demeans our Saviour – considering all that He had endured in the preceding hours. Yes, the Lord was still forced to walk as a spectacle behind some of the soldiers in this little parade. But the language of the scripture seems to say that Simon carried the entire cross.
In our song books, we have an hymn written by Thomas Shepherd and George Allen. The first stanza reads – “Must Jesus bear the cross alone, and all the world go free.” “No there’s a cross for every one; and there’s a cross for me.” BH Carroll, a hundred and fifty years ago, quoted Judge Andrew Broadus who said that when he was young he used to hear people sing it with slightly different wording – “Must SIMON bear the cross alone, and all the world go free.” How much does that change, affect the message of the song? Why should Simon bear the cross of Christ, while you and I go free?
In Simon we have a picture of the work of the Lord’s church and the work of you and me. It’s the Lord’s cross; it’s His work and His grace. There is no salvation from sin apart from Christ, and no one can bear the sins of others or of himself. But you and I, as saints of God, are in a very limited partnership with Saviour. As far as our neighbors are concerned, the work of the cross is nothing until they are confronted with it. Until we do our part in carrying the cross to the hearts of men and women it will be as though there was never any sacrifice at all. Simon, the Cyrenian, is an essential link in the work of God’s redemption. And in a certain small sense so are you and I.