Who carried the cross?

Brant Clements has a post up which deals with the question of who actually carried Jesus' cross.  Was it Simon of Cyrene, as Mark says?  Or did Jesus carry it himself, as the fourth gospel says?

 

In terms of actual history, we don't know--and really, that is not the question.  What we have are four authors writing four versions of the euangelion--"good message."  They are each an interpretation of the life and meaning of Jesus, each written for a certain audience, each written in a certain context of history and geography.      

For example, as Pastor Clements points out, the fourth gospel treats Jesus as a kingly and regal figure throughout.  He is in the beginning with God (1:1).  When he speaks, an armed cohort of Roman soldiers falls to the ground!  (18:6)  Even when he dies, he seems in total control.  His last words are, "It is accomplished!"--a saying of victory.

This is called "high Christology," i.e. a very "high" view of Jesus.  Indeed, the fourth gospel has some of the "highest Christology" in the entire New Testament.  It is the Biblical source most commonly cited in the fourth century trinitarian debates--by both sides!  

In the context of this high view of Jesus, the author of the fourth gospel is not likely to say that anyone but Jesus carried the cross.  In fact, the author says it quite pointedly:  "...and carrying the cross by himself." (19:17)  It fits with the author's theology to say that Jesus carried his cross.  

The three synoptics--Matthew, Mark, Luke--see the situation some differently.  The primary source is Mark--that is, Matthew and Luke both used Mark something as a "template" for their own writing.  

In Mark, Jesus is a victim throughout.  Enemies stalk him.  His own disciples never get it.  Even his friends abandon Jesus in the end.  Meanwhile, the authorities brutalize him.

Matthew and Luke soften some aspects of that rather harsh picture, but, even at that, the over-all sense of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is that Jesus is somewhat "lower" than in the fourth gospel.

The word "lower" should be seen without judgment.  It is a good thing we have this "lower" view.  It gives us a "street level" view of Jesus.  It reminds us that Jesus is on our side.  Plus, one should keep in mind that Matthew, Mark, and Luke would each argue the point.  From their perspective, and for their purposes, they thought they were writing "high Christology" too.  

In Mark, Jesus was indeed abused and tortured, but he's still resurrected.  It is precisely this tortured/resurrected person who is "Son of God" (1:1).  We call Mark's Christology "lower" only because Jesus' life, pre-resurrection, is affected by turmoil, controversy, and victim-hood.

Yes, you can make the two passages "fit".  You can make it so that Jesus carried the cross himself, then Simon carried it.  In order to do so, you have to argue the tenses of the Greek verbs, in two different spatial locations, in order to make both Mark and the fourth gospel "right" in terms of being an actual description of an historical event.  It's possible to do it, but the effort seems both painfully strained and beside the point.

How much better to let each gospel writer have their own integrity!  The fourth gospel has its purposes for a kingly and regal portrait of Jesus.  Likewise, the synoptics--Matthew, Mark, Luke--have their purposes in their "view from below."  Discerning those purposes seems more faithful to the text than trying to "moosh" two stories together so that they "fit" right according to some pre-conceived ideology.

We have four witnesses--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John--and not one "Gospel of St. Cuisinart."

Image:  Gwyneth Leech 

 

Comments

[Brant Clements]

Thanks for the nod, John. And thanks for explaining a thing or two better than I did myself. I may need to use your "Gospel of St. Cuisinart" sometime.

[John Petty]

Feel free. I read your post when I had just been thinking, "Yikes, I need to write about something, but what?" You made the main point, but I sure wanted to back it up.

Thanks for your visit.

[Joshua Stevens]

I stumbled here on a search for Ismael (Quinn), but while here I have a ? or two. If our brethren, Christ himself, walked this earth, would he still turn over "moneychangers and merchants tables?" I never wore the WWJD bracelets because I've tried my best to live it. I will be a first time father come 22nd (which I have a problem with our "medicine") and I have never gotten my license because insurance, in my opinion, is legal racketeering. I'm 30 and with the little interest and care I have for money, I won't let others take what's is hard earned for possibly naught. I feel that if I don't give in I won't be able to provide for family as I have for myself but on the other hand I feel that I am being forced to go against what is right and fair. It should also be noted that I walk with Christ hand in hand, and not with him above or in front of me as many put him. I am no fanatic, just someone who is "ashamed" of being Christian because I feel the messages and can see what Christianity can be. It's not Sundays or Church, it's all in the heart we were blessed with. Ant insight would be of great thanks. God Bless.

[John Petty]

I'm not sure where you need an opinion. I do hope that you found the Quinn books. I've read Ishmael and one other one and enjoyed them both. Thanks for your visit.