Simon of Cyrene

[jtodisco]

For all the countless times I’ve read the gospels and heard them read I’ve never heard anyone explain what the deeper meaning is behind the actions of Simon of Cyrene. I’ve heard some references made to how his actions demonstrate the need to help one another carry our crosses, which of course is true and good advice, but I’m looking for some solid exegesis. What is the Lord trying to tell us through Scripture about this event? Other events concerning our Lord’s passion have many theological interpretations surrounding them, and I do not doubt this incident of the carrying of the Cross is any different in that respect. I would be very appreciative of anyone who can either explain to me themselves what the accepted view(s) are on this, or could point me in the direction of what the Church officially teaches concerning this. Thanks.

 

[NotWorthy]

For all the countless times I’ve read the gospels and heard them read I’ve never heard anyone explain what the deeper meaning is behind the actions of Simon of Cyrene. I’ve heard some references made to how his actions demonstrate the need to help one another carry our crosses, which of course is true and good advice, but I’m looking for some solid exegesis. What is the Lord trying to tell us through Scripture about this event? Other events concerning our Lord’s passion have many theological interpretations surrounding them, and I do not doubt this incident of the carrying of the Cross is any different in that respect. I would be very appreciative of anyone who can either explain to me themselves what the accepted view(s) are on this, or could point me in the direction of what the Church officially teaches concerning this. Thanks.

Isn’t it thought that Simon or his two sons were thought to be early Christian converts. I can’t recall, but I think there were two sons (listed as “sons of Simon”) who were early Church leaders.

I know it doesn’t explain the meaning behind Simon’s interplay with Jesus, but it would indicate that the event effected Simon.

 

[jtodisco]

Isn’t it thought that Simon or his two sons were thought to be early Christian converts. I can’t recall, but I think there were two sons (listed as “sons of Simon”) who were early Church leaders.

I know it doesn’t explain the meaning behind Simon’s interplay with Jesus, but it would indicate that the event effected Simon.

“They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.” - Mark 15.21

That’s the scriptural reference you were referring to. I’ve also heard that tradition has it that these two sons of Simon were members of the early Church, however beyond that I too am unaware of any further details. I do think your inference isn’t without support though (and highly intriguing), it would be very interesting if we knew more about these two children and their father.

 

[NotWorthy]

“They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus.” - Mark 15.21

That’s the scriptural reference you were referring to. I’ve also heard that tradition has it that these two sons of Simon were members of the early Church, however beyond that I too am unaware of any further details. I do think your inference isn’t without support though (and highly intriguing), it would be very interesting if we knew more about these two children and their father.

Ahhhh…

Then that would be the Rufus mentioned in Romans 16

13 ****** Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

 

[po18guy]

Noteworthy in this regard, is the listing of Simon as “father of” Rufus and Alexander, rather than as “son of XXX”, as was Jewish literary and genealogical practice. Granted, Luke was a gentile, and may have used another tradition to describe the relationship, but it still begs the question. He did list Jesus’ genealogy in reverse order in Luke 3, so who knows? It does not appear likely that the “Alexander” spoken of in Acts 4 is the other son, since that man was a member of the high priest’s family, along with Caiaphas. Another Alexander is spoken of in 1 and 2 Timothy, but again he appears to have been a resident of Ephesus. There appears to be no explanation for his inclusion in the text, other than that he was there at the riot.

Still, it is certainly possible that Simon’s two sons accompanied him on that fateful day, witnessed their father carrying the cross, and were so struck by the event that they later converted.

 

[jtodisco]

I’ve been told that both Alexander and Rufus were quite common names at the time of the early Church and as such it is hard to say if the Rufus mentioned by Paul in Romans 16.13 is actually referring to the same individual mentioned in Mark’s Gospel (though of course, this is possible).

Getting back to the meaning behind Simon’s actions, I should have worded my question a little more clearly. I’m fairly sure that Simon was just caught up in everything, and that his actions at the very most were motivated by pity and at the very least he was simply in the “wrong place at the wrong time” and forced to help Christ carry the Cross. What I’m curious about is the potential theological implications that may be hidden in this episode.

For instance, looking at another familiar step in Christ’s Passion, we find Pilate giving the Jewish crowd a choice between freeing Jesus of Nazareth or freeing (Jesus) Barabbas. I put the word “Jesus” in parenthesis because in Mark’s Gospel this other individual is in fact called Jesus Barabbas, whereas in the other Gospels he is simply referred to as “Barabbas”. This may seem insignificant, but it isn’t.

Now at first glance this is merely an angry mob choosing an insurrectionist over the Lord, however when examining the names and the limited information we have it becomes clear that this choice has greater meaning behind it. Barabbas, or Bar-Abbas, means “Son of the Father”, which is precisely what Jesus Christ is but instead this title is given to the other man. So on one hand we have Jesus of Nazareth, Son of the Living God/Father who is the true Messiah and on the other hand we have Jesus Bar-Abbas, Son of the “Father” who is a false messiah. But the first century Jews thought their Messiah would be a warrior king like David, and so they choose the false messiah, the insurrectionist over Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah who’s “kingdom is not of this world”.

So you can see the deeper implications of this otherwise quick choice. I apologize for the long digression, but this is the type of exegetical analysis that I’m looking for in regards to the actions of Simon of Cyrene. I find it near impossible to believe there is no deeper meaning behind these actions since the cross was so central to Christ’s ministry. To have our Lord Himself being helped in carrying His Cross cannot simply be a minor footnote in the accounts of the Passion. (And I won’t even begin to inquire as to what reasons there may be for the Synoptic Gospels to mention Simon while John’s Gospel claims Christ carried the Cross entirely on His own.)

I appreciate all the help you’ve all given so far. Thanks.

 

[jtodisco]

Noteworthy in this regard, is the listing of Simon as “father of” Rufus and Alexander, rather than as “son of XXX”, as was Jewish literary and genealogical practice. Granted, Luke was a gentile, and may have used another tradition to describe the relationship, but it still begs the question. He did list Jesus’ genealogy in reverse order in Luke 3, so who knows? It does not appear likely that the “Alexander” spoken of in Acts 4 is the other son, since that man was a member of the high priest’s family, along with Caiaphas. Another Alexander is spoken of in 1 and 2 Timothy, but again he appears to have been a resident of Ephesus. There appears to be no explanation for his inclusion in the text, other than that he was there at the riot.

Still, it is certainly possible that Simon’s two sons accompanied him on that fateful day, witnessed their father carrying the cross, and were so struck by the event that they later converted.

Po18guy, that’s a very interesting point, however I’m looking at Luke’s account of the Passion right now and he simply says “Simon of Cyrene” with no mention of the two sons. It’s Mark’s Gospel that says “Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus”. Now, if we assume that Mark’s Gospel was actually written by Paul’s sometimes companion Mark/John mentioned in Acts, then I’m not really sure what to make of the way Simon is introduced. Was Mark a Jewish or a Gentile Christian? I can’t remember for sure. I nearly confused Mark with Timothy for a minute thinking he was the one who had a Jewish mother but a Greek father.

But if Mark was a Jewish Christian then for him to introduce Simon of Cyrene as “father of” instead of “son of” may indicate that Simon was a gentile. If Mark was a gentile himself, then this may have no meaning either way.

So many questions.

 

[Apollos]

I’m looking for some solid exegesis.

God ordained that someone should help shoulder the burden for two reasons:

• That it is the individual who must take up his cross and follow.
• That the doctrine of justification by faith alone is false; works on the part of the individual are nevertheless necessary.

That’s my official teaching

 

[NotWorthy]

I’ve been told that both Alexander and Rufus were quite common names at the time of the early Church and as such it is hard to say if the Rufus mentioned by Paul in Romans 16.13 is actually referring to the same individual mentioned in Mark’s Gospel (though of course, this is possible).

Getting back to the meaning behind Simon’s actions, I should have worded my question a little more clearly. I’m fairly sure that Simon was just caught up in everything, and that his actions at the very most were motivated by pity and at the very least he was simply in the “wrong place at the wrong time” and forced to help Christ carry the Cross. What I’m curious about is the potential theological implications that may be hidden in this episode.

For instance, looking at another familiar step in Christ’s Passion, we find Pilate giving the Jewish crowd a choice between freeing Jesus of Nazareth or freeing (Jesus) Barabbas. I put the word “Jesus” in parenthesis because in Mark’s Gospel this other individual is in fact called Jesus Barabbas, whereas in the other Gospels he is simply referred to as “Barabbas”. This may seem insignificant, but it isn’t.

Now at first glance this is merely an angry mob choosing an insurrectionist over the Lord, however when examining the names and the limited information we have it becomes clear that this choice has greater meaning behind it. Barabbas, or Bar-Abbas, means “Son of the Father”, which is precisely what Jesus Christ is but instead this title is given to the other man. So on one hand we have Jesus of Nazareth, Son of the Living God/Father who is the true Messiah and on the other hand we have Jesus Bar-Abbas, Son of the “Father” who is a false messiah. But the first century Jews thought their Messiah would be a warrior king like David, and so they choose the false messiah, the insurrectionist over Jesus of Nazareth, the true Messiah who’s “kingdom is not of this world”.

So you can see the deeper implications of this otherwise quick choice. I apologize for the long digression, but this is the type of exegetical analysis that I’m looking for in regards to the actions of Simon of Cyrene. I find it near impossible to believe there is no deeper meaning behind these actions since the cross was so central to Christ’s ministry. To have our Lord Himself being helped in carrying His Cross cannot simply be a minor footnote in the accounts of the Passion. (And I won’t even begin to inquire as to what reasons there may be for the Synoptic Gospels to mention Simon while John’s Gospel claims Christ carried the Cross entirely on His own.)

I appreciate all the help you’ve all given so far. Thanks.

I don’t think that our good Simon had a choice. It seems he was fulfilling one of the “commandments” that Jesus talked about in the Sermon on the Mount. Matt 5:41 - “Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.” If you look at Matthew 27, you’ll find, “32 As they were going out, they met a Cyrenian named Simon; this man they pressed into service to carry his cross.”

I find this ironic, because you see so many of the other commandments of the Sermon on the Mount fulfilled in Jesus’ passion.

39 ****** But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.*** 40 ****** If anyone wants to go to law with you over your tunic, hand him your cloak as well.****** 41 ****** Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.****** 42 ****** Give to the one who asks of you, and do not turn your back on one who wants to borrow.****** 43 *** "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'*** 44 ****** But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you***,

It seems that our good Simon was one of the first ones to follow Christ’s example that He laid out in living the “Beatitudes”!

 

[po18guy]

Po18guy, that’s a very interesting point, however I’m looking at Luke’s account of the Passion right now and he simply says “Simon of Cyrene” with no mention of the two sons. It’s Mark’s Gospel that says “Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus”. Now, if we assume that Mark’s Gospel was actually written by Paul’s sometimes companion Mark/John mentioned in Acts, then I’m not really sure what to make of the way Simon is introduced. Was Mark a Jewish or a Gentile Christian? I can’t remember for sure. I nearly confused Mark with Timothy for a minute thinking he was the one who had a Jewish mother but a Greek father.

But if Mark was a Jewish Christian then for him to introduce Simon of Cyrene as “father of” instead of “son of” may indicate that Simon was a gentile. If Mark was a gentile himself, then this may have no meaning either way.

So many questions.

Mea culpa! Sorry about the switch in authors. Now that you correctly point this out, it becomes even more interesting. Mark is actually John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (companion of Saint Paul). John Mark is also known as translator or interpreter for Saint Peter, so much so, that his Gospel could almost be considered the Gospel according to Peter. So, there is quite possibly a connection here between the two men named Rufus, since both Saints Peter and Paul originated in Jerusalem and ended up in Rome.

As to Simon of Cyrene, I see him as a type, perhaps the first example of living out Christ’s admonition in Luke 9:23, and a possible allusion to Romans 6:6. Simon had to be forced against his will, against his desires or preferences, to carry Jesus’ cross. He knew that the cross was the universal symbol of a shameful death. Perhaps, by taking it up, he feared that he would somehow share in the death of our Lord. Taking it up, he did make it his own for the short journey to Golgotha. But, the alternative (disobedience to the power of Rome) was even worse than carrying it! This speaks to me of the punishment associated with the willful failure to follow Jesus. Simon was at a decision point - a crossroads, if you will. After denying himself and taking up the cross, he then followed after Jesus (Luke 23:26). This matches exactly with Jesus’ admonition (Matthew 10:28, 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) to all who would follow Him. I see Simon as the prototype of Christians.

 

[jtodisco]

Wow, I walk away from the computer for just a few hours and when I come back I’ve got all sorts of wonderful responses. Thanks to everyone who shared their interpretations of this event. You have given me some interesting information to contemplate.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mea culpa! Sorry about the switch in authors. Now that you correctly point this out, it becomes even more interesting. Mark is actually John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas (companion of Saint Paul). John Mark is also known as translator or interpreter for Saint Peter, so much so, that his Gospel could almost be considered the Gospel according to Peter. So, there is quite possibly a connection here between the two men named Rufus, since both Saints Peter and Paul originated in Jerusalem and ended up in Rome.

As to Simon of Cyrene, I see him as a type, perhaps the first example of living out Christ’s admonition in Luke 9:23, and a possible allusion to Romans 6:6. Simon had to be forced against his will, against his desires or preferences, to carry Jesus’ cross. He knew that the cross was the universal symbol of a shameful death. Perhaps, by taking it up, he feared that he would somehow share in the death of our Lord. Taking it up, he did make it his own for the short journey to Golgotha. But, the alternative (disobedience to the power of Rome) was even worse than carrying it! This speaks to me of the punishment associated with the willful failure to follow Jesus. Simon was at a decision point - a crossroads, if you will. After denying himself and taking up the cross, he then followed after Jesus (Luke 23:26). This matches exactly with Jesus’ admonition (Matthew 10:28, 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23) to all who would follow Him. I see Simon as the prototype of Christians.

Po, as I look at your post and my post (#9), I marvel that we both took two different paths - you with Simon “taking up the Cross and following Jesus”, and me with Simon “following the Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount” - and came up with the same conclusion.

What does Mark Twain say? “You can often measure a man’s intelligence by how much he agrees with you”! I say, “You, sir, are a very intelligent man”! :newidea:

 

[po18guy]

Po, as I look at your post and my post (#9), I marvel that we both took two different paths - you with Simon “taking up the Cross and following Jesus”, and me with Simon “following the Commandments in the Sermon on the Mount” - and came up with the same conclusion.

What does Mark Twain say? “You can often measure a man’s intelligence by how much he agrees with you”! I say, “You, sir, are a very intelligent man”! :newidea:

Good it is that we are not playing a zero-sum game! It’s both-and. If I made any sense at all, praise the Holy Spirit for weakening me.

 

[NHInsider]

One interesting related tidbit - some scholars believe that Simeon the Cyrene is the same Simeon called Niger (presumably a black man, and Cyrene is in Libya) who is mentioned as being part of the Church at Antioch. If he and his wife were part of that church, it might explain how it was that Rufus’ mother became “like a mother” to Paul (Romans 16:13).

 

[patrick457]

I don’t think that our good Simon had a choice. It seems he was fulfilling one of the “commandments” that Jesus talked about in the Sermon on the Mount. Matt 5:41 - “Should anyone press you into service for one mile, go with him for two miles.” If you look at Matthew 27, you’ll find, “32 As they were going out, they met a Cyrenian named Simon; this man they pressed into service to carry his cross.”

And both passages do use the same Greek word: angareuo (‘to employ a courier’, by extension ‘to compel [into public service]’, ‘to force’, ‘to dragoon’)!

By the way, a bit of a trivia: back in 1941, a group of ossuaries were discovered by Eleazar L. Sukenik in the Kidron Valley - who only published a brief announcement at the time (a detailed description was not published until twenty years later). On the front of Ossuary no. 9 there was this inscription in Greek: Ἀλέξανδρος Σίμων (Alexandros Simōn “Alexander (son of) Simon”). The back bore a quite similar legend:

Σίμων Ἀλέ (Simōn Ale …])
Ἀλέξανδρος (Alexandros)
Σίμωνος (Simōnos “(son) of Simon”)

The lid, meanwhile, contained (in Greek and Hebrew/Aramaic) Αλέξανδρου (Alexandrou “of Alexander”) and אלכסנדרוס קרנית ('lksndrws Qrnyt “Alexander Qrnyt”). We don’t know exactly what Qrnyt means, but some epigraphers think that it is the adjective form of Cyrene, yielding ‘Alexander Cyreanite’ (there is this opinion that the engraver made a spelling error and Qrnyt should thus be read as Qrnyh, “[the] Cyrenean”). By far, this is the only known instance we have of an ‘Alexander son of Simon’!

Ossuary no. 5 from the same find, meanwhile, bore the name Σάρα Σίμωνος Πτυλεμαϊκή (“Sara [daughter] of Simon, of Ptylemais [sic]” - it is Sara who is from Ptolemais, not Simon). Sara/Sarra (Greek variants of Sarah) is one common name in Cyrenaica.

 

[PAboy57]

You all continue to amaze me of the knowledge you provide. These are the posts I love to read as real learning occurs.

Praise the Holy Spirit for helping you provide great information!!!

Thank you!

 

[twinc]

very often the conjectures are endless blind alleys and cul de sacs and this is why we are advised to always follow the literal or obvious sense - but if we must conjecture then simon represents mankind carry the original upright tree and Jesus the cross piece to form an X to cancel out the original[sin].In fact I also suspect that the upright stake or tree was already in place and only the cross piece was carried by Jesus and mankind to cross out the original[tree]sin - twinc

 

[inkaneer]

Just for the sake of conjecture consider the following:

1. The name Simon, he shares the same name as the one who denied Jesus
   *.
2. His position, under the cross.

In reply to Mark’s identifying him as the father of Rufus and Alexander one must remember that Mark was writing his gospel while in Rome. People there would probably not know who Simon was but probably did know who Rufus and Alexander were especially if they were missionaries, so Mark provides the connection so they would understand who Simon was.*

 

[jtodisco]

very often the conjectures are endless blind alleys and cul de sacs and this is why we are advised to always follow the literal or obvious sense

Who is it that advises us to “always follow the literal or obvious sense” of Scripture? It certainly isn’t the Church that advises such a narrow view of Scripture. The Catechism itself states that there are two levels of meaning in Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. The spiritual way of understanding is then divided again into three sub-levels of meaning in Scripture (allegorical, moral, anagogical). True, the final verdict on whether an interpretation is correct is left to the authorities in the Church, but that does not forbid one from reading the Bible with more than a strictly literal eye.

"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.
**
119** “It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me."

 

[twinc]

indeed “I would not believe in the gospel,had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me”- Pope Leo XII in Proventissimus Deus advised " the literal and obvious sense must always be accepted unless reason or necessity dictate otherwise" - this has never been rescinded or superceded,of course he never said only the literal - twinc