I wonder if it is possible to know a story so well that one simply misses many of the details? I know I often come to see things differently even after many sessions of reading, discussion and study. Similar things are done inadvertently during ordinary conversation. We may be speaking with someone, but, without waiting for the full story, we jump to the wrong conclusion, only to be corrected by the speaker. Understanding becomes even more problematic when someone we trust tells us of his conclusion about what another friend has said, so, when speaking with the second friend, the blurred truth becomes even more difficult to correct. I believe this sort of thing often occurs when we read and discuss the Bible. We, no doubt, get the gist of the account, but the details that get us there are often taken for granted and obscured.
As the soldiers led Jesus away to be crucified they saw and laid hold of a man, Simon of Cyrene, and caused him to carry Jesus’ cross behind him (Luke 23:26). Just prior to this, the soldiers had been in the Antonia mocking Jesus (Matthew 27:27-31; Mark 15:16-20). Moreover, when Simon was seized, he was coming into the city from out in the country (Luke 23:26). The soldiers were coming out of something (Matthew 27:32), either the Antonia or Jerusalem, when they seized Simon. This was the very first event mentioned as Jesus was led away to be crucified. The Gospel narrators imply this occurred near the beginning of Jesus’ journey to Golgotha. The Gospel of John has Jesus carrying his own cross and never mentions Simon (John 19:16-17), so Jesus must have begun to carry the cross while yet in the Antonia, and sometime afterward it was laid upon Simon to carry for Jesus. The Synoptics put this near the beginning of Jesus’ journey to the crucifixion site.
It is thought by nearly everyone who reads and comments on the account that Simon was compelled to carry Jesus’ cross, because Jesus was too weak from the beatings he had taken and could no longer carry it. However, such a thing is a presumption, unsupported in any of the Gospel narratives. If Jesus went west and south or west and north from the Temple and the Antonia, he would have had to go through the city streets, and in doing so such a thing would lend credence to the idea that Jesus fell a few times, and, because this is the direction they believe the procession took place, it was thought Jesus might not live to get to Golgotha to be crucified. Hence, Simon would be needed to carry the cross.
However, if Simon was coming into the city from the east gate, logic demands that he would have been seized immediately after Jesus left the Antonia, because the scripture says he was coming (into the city) from out in the country (Luke 23:26). If this is the case, some other reason must be found for the Roman soldiers seizing him. If the soldiers had just left off mocking Jesus, it is possible and even logical that Simon would have been seized to carry Jesus’ cross, as a mock display of the King’s steward bearing his Master’s implement of execution. Hence, the mockery would have continue all the way to Golgotha.
Moreover, leaving the city at the East Gate puts the site of the crucifixion east of the Temple, not west, as is normally presumed. As we shall see in the next few studies, Golgotha is east of the Temple and is a specific place on the Mount of Olives.
Smoodock's Blog 