1-1-5 The Walk To Golgotha
7 Tradition has it that the victim had to hold their hands
out to receive the stake, which they then had to carry. The Lord's
prophecy of Peter's crucifixion thus describes it as Peter stretching
out his hands and being led to his death (Jn. 21:18). Yet the Lord
emphasized in His teaching that we must take up the cross,
as He did (Mk. 8:34; 10:21). This might just suggest that in line
with the Lord's willing death, giving up of His life rather than
it being taken from Him, He bent down and picked up the stake before
the soldiers had the chance to offer it to Him. I imagine doing
this in a deft manner. The deftness of the way He broke that bread
apart and held the cup comes out in Mt. 26:26. He knew what that
breaking of bread was going to mean. His willingness would have
been such a contrast to the unwilling hesitation of the thieves
and other victims. The soldiers must have been blind indeed to still
mock Him, despite all these indications that He was more than mere
man. That piece of wood that was laid upon Him by the Father, however
the Lord physically took it up, represented our sins, which were
laid upon Him (Is. 53:6); your laziness to do your readings early
this morning, my snap at the woman in the bus, his hatred of his
mother in law... that piece of wood was the symbol of our sins,
every one of them. This is what we brought upon Him. It was our
laziness, our enmity, our foolishness, our weak will...
that necessitated the death of Jesus in this terrible way. He went
through with it all " to make an end of sins" (Dan. 9:26).
Will we do our little bit in responding? The marks of His sufferings
will be in Him eternally, and thereby we will be eternally reminded
of the things we now only dimly appreciate (Rev. 5:6; Zech. 13:6).
The walk from the courthouse to Golgotha was probably about 800m (half a mile). One of the soldiers would have carried the sign displaying the Lord's Name and crime. The thieves were probably counting the paces (maybe the crowd was chanting them?). You know how it is when doing a heavy task, 'Just three more boxes to lug upstairs...just two more...last one'. But the Lord was above this. Of that I'm sure. Doing any physically strenuous task that takes you to the end of your strength, there is that concentration on nothing else but the job in hand. Hauling a heavy box or load, especially in situations of compulsion or urgency, it becomes irrelevant if you bump into someone or crush a child's toy beneath your heavy feet. But the Lord rose above. He turned and spoke to the women. Luke as a doctor knew that suffering makes one self-centred. It is perhaps because of this that he especially seems to concentrate on the wonder of the way in which the Lord looked out of His own agony to be so concerned with that of others. A.D. Norris has commented (The Gospel Of Mark): " It is he who reports the Lord's prayer for Simon Peter (22:31); who recounts the Lord's sympathetic warning to the women of Jerusalem (23:27-31); and who speaks of the Lord's forgiveness for His crucifiers, and remission for the penitent thief (23:34,43)" .
The record that they put the Lord's own clothes on Him and then led Him to crucifixion conflicts with contemporary records of the victim being led out naked, or certainly without his own outer clothes. Christ was revealed, or 'revealed himself' (Gk.) on the cross, when He took away our sins (1 Jn. 3:5). This may be John referring to how he had witnessed Christ crucified naked. Yet we know that the Lord wore His outer robe right up to the impaling. It may be that the whipping and abuse He had suffered was far beyond what the soldiers had the right to minister. There were special directives concerning the need for the victim to die by crucifixion, not at the hands of the soldiers. It may be that they wanted to cover up the illegal marks on the body by making the Lord go to the cross fully dressed. In which case, again we see how He suffered the very worst of man's machinations.
The Lord having His own clothes put back on Him meant that He would have been dressed in blood sprinkled garments for the walk to Golgotha. Again His holy mind would have been on the Messianic prophecies of Is. 63 about a Messiah with blood sprinkled garments lifted up in glorious victory. Or perhaps He saw the connection to Lev. 8:30, where the priests had to have blood sprinkled garments in order to begin their priestly work. This would have sent His mind to us, for whom He was interceding. Likewise when He perceived that His garment would not be rent, He would have joyfully perceived that He was indeed as the High Priest whose garment was not to be rent (Ex. 39:23).
8 John says that the Lord went out bearing His cross.
Luke says that Simon was asked to carry the hinder part of the cross
behind Him. Matthew and Mark say Simon carried the cross. Mk. 15:22
(Gk.) says that the soldiers carried Jesus to Golgotha. J.B. Phillips
renders it: " They got him to a place Golgotha" . It would
seem that the Lord collapsed, perhaps fainting. If He was crucified
on an olive tree (excavations of crucified men suggest this is what
was used), it would not have been simply because of the weight of
the stake. Take a picture of Him lying there, with the face that
was marred more than the children of men pressed into the hot dust
of that Jerusalem street. And some human fool probably said something
like 'Come on, get up' (doubtless with embellishments). If indeed
He did faint, there would have been that sense of 'coming round',
the " Where am I?" , the memory and consciousness flooding
back. " Have I died and been resurrected?" No, as some
nameless soldier kicked Him and told Him to get up.
John's statement that " He went out, bearing the cross for Himself" as He walked to Golgotha is a real emphasis, seeing that it was as He came out that it was necessary for them to make Simon carry the cross. John takes a snapshot of that moment, and directs our concentration to the Lord at that moment, determined to carry it to the end, even though in fact He didn't. It is this picture of following the Lord carrying His cross which the Lord had earlier asked us to make the model of our lives. We are left to assume that the two criminals followed Him in the procession. They were types of us, the humble and the proud, the selfless and the selfish, the two categories among those who have been asked to carry the cross and follow the Lord in His 'last walk'.
The word John uses for 'bearing' is translated (and used in the sense of) 'take up' in 10:31. It was as if John saw as significant the Lord's willingness to take up the cross Himself, without waiting for it to be forced upon Him as it probably was on the other two. And there is a clear lesson for us, who fain would carry something of that cross. And yet the similarity of meaning within this word for 'taking up' and 'bearing / carrying' is further instructive. The Lord picked it up and was willing to carry it, but didn't make it to the end of the 'last walk', through understandable human weakness. Amidst the evident challenge of the cross, there is interwoven comfort indeed (as there is in the Lord's eager and positive acceptance of the thief, Joseph and Nicodemus, and the wondrous slowness of the Father's punishment of those ever-so-evil men who did the Lord to death).
The Lord had foreseen most aspects of His death: the handing over, the picking up of the cross, the carrying it, the being lifted up. In Lk. 15:5 the Lord spoke about how He as the good shepherd would carry the lost sheep on His shoulders, rejoicing. It is tempting to connect this with the way Christ spoke of His joy (Jn. 17:13) just hours before He was arrested. I am not suggesting there was any joy at all for the Lord in His carrying of the cross- not in the way we understand joy. But perhaps to Him, in His vocabulary, " my joy" meant something else; as for Him, 'eating' meant not eating food but doing the Father's will (Jn. 4:34). Whatever " rejoicing" , " my joy" meant for the Lord, He had that sense as He carried the cross on His shoulder.
9 " The crossbar was carried...weighing 34 to 57
kg., was placed across the nape of the victim's neck and balanced
along both shoulders. Usually the outstretched arms then were tied
to the crossbar" (1) . This means
that the Lord would have had His shoulders bowed forward as He walked
to Golgotha, with both His hands lifted up against His chest. He
evidently foresaw this in some detail when He described His mission
to man as a shepherd carrying His lost sheep on both shoulders.
Let's forever forget the picture of a happy, quiet lamb snugly bobbling
along on the shepherd's shoulders. We are surely meant to fill in
the details in the parables. The sheep, his underside covered in
faeces and mud, would have been terrified; in confusion he would
have struggled with the saviour shepherd. To be carried on His shoulders
would have been a strange experience; he would have struggled and
been awkward, as the shepherd stumbled along, gripping both paws
against His chest with His uplifted hands. This was exactly the
Lord's physical image as He stumbled to the place of crucifixion.
He evidently saw the cross as a symbol of us, His struggling and
awkward lost sheep. And every step of the way along the Via Dolorosa,
Yahweh's enemies reproached every stumbling footstep of His anointed
(Ps. 89:51). It was all this that made Him a true King and our unquestioned
leader- for on His shoulders is to rest the authority of the Kingdom
(Is. 9:5), because He bore His cross upon the same shoulders.
10 Cyrene was where there was a strongly orthodox Jewish
community (cp. Acts 6:9). Simon was probably dark skinned, a countryman,
a simple man, who had perhaps come up to Jerusalem in his zeal to
keep Passover. What a comfort it was to the Lord to see a black
man carrying His cross; for He had earlier said that all
His true followers would carry the cross behind Him (Mt. 10:38;
16:24). The Hebrew writer seemed to see Simon as typical of us all
when writing of how we must go out of the city with the Lord, "
bearing his reproach" (Heb. 13:12,13, probably using 'reproach'
as a parallel to 'the cross'). He would have seen in Simon a prototype
of all His future, suffering, humiliated followers; " impressed"
by the predestined calling, almost against our will, to carry His
cross (Mt. 27:32 RV mg.). And was it accident that this prototype
was almost certainly a black man, when perhaps ultimately it may
appear that a large proportion of the faithful body of the Lord
Jesus will have been black people? If indeed Simon was a black Jew
(cp. modern Falashas) who had come up to keep the Passover, it would
have been annoying beyond words for him to be made unclean by the
blood of the Lord, which was inevitably on the stake after His first
attempt at bearing it after His flogging. Not to mention the shame
for a zealous Jew in having to carry the cross of this Jesus of
Nazareth. Yet it would seem that he was later converted, and he
in turn converted his wife and son (Mk. 15:21 cp. Rom. 16:13). Mark
rarely records proper nouns, but he makes a special effort to mention
that Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It would therefore
seem that these men were well known in the early church. Simon may
be the " Simeon called Niger" ('the black one') of Acts
13:1. He is listed there next to Lucius, who was also from Cyrene.
The thief and the centurion were likewise converted, and the faith
of Joseph, Nicodemus and probably others was brought out into the
open by the cross. Like Samson, the Lord won victories even in His
death. The spiritual turn-around in Simon is a type of what is experienced
by all whom the Lord compels to carry His cross. He was passing
by, going somewhere else, full of his own plans, going about to
establish his own righteousness...and then, out of the blue, he
was called to what he much later realized was the greatest honour
a man could be called to: to accompany the Son of God and carry
His cross, right to the end. We are left to imagine him plonking
it down, as if to say to Jesus 'Now you've got to do the rest',
and then slipping off into the crowd.
Another reading of Simon is possible. Simon is a Greek name, and the names of his sons are Greco-Roman. The way he is described as “coming out of the field" (Lk. 23:26) could imply that he was working, doing what was improper on a feast day, because he was a Gentile. It could be that he simply lived and worked near Jerusalem, he wasn’t a religious guy, and like Saul out looking for lost cattle, he was going some place else…until the Lord as it were arrested him with the message of the cross.
11 He turned and spoke to the women on the walk to Golgotha;
He looked out of His own agony to the needs of others. This is another
theme of the cross. He was even thoughtful for weak Pilate (Jn.
19:11); for the thief, for the forgiveness of those mocking soldiers,
for His mother, for John, for those women lining the Via Dolorosa...
And those women, He said, would be destroyed in the condemnation
of Jerusalem in AD70. Phil. 2:2-4 makes the point that the essence
of the cross is in the way the Lord's mind was so full of concern
for others throughout the whole wretched process. The Lord's
Bible-filled mind would have been aware of Jer. 9:20-22, which prophesied
special woe to women in the holocaust of AD70. Those women were
condemned. Yet the Lord turned, in His desperate agony, to speak
to them. I admit, as I must through every stage of the cross, that
I wouldn't have done this. I wouldn't have bothered with them. But
He made such effort to at least try to get them to change their
minds. They were weeping for Him, but He knew they would not obey
His command to leave Jerusalem when it would be surrounded by armies.
Neither would their children. On a human level, they must have been
so annoying. Young women (if they were alive in AD70 40 years later),
probably passively in love with Him, moved to tears at His passion
but with no regard for His words and the real implications of His
cross. Yet still He tried for them, running the risk of cat calls
of 'You can't carry your own cross but you can talk to the girls'.
" If they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?" is packed with allusion to O.T. Scriptures (Ez. 17:24; Jer. 11:16,19; Ps. 1; Jer. 17:5-8). His preceding words to the women were likewise; his quotation from Hos. 10:8 is set in a context so appropriate to the situation He was in. If they did these things to Him, the green and healthy shoot, what would be done to the dry dead wood of Israel…? His concern was always with the sufferings others would experience rather than being lost in His own introspection. Without getting too deeply involved in the actual exposition, a simple lesson emerges: He was not so overpowered by the terrible physicality of His human situation that He ceased to be spiritually aware. His mind was full of the word, not just out of place quotations flooding His subconscious, but real awareness of the spirit of the Father's word and its' intensely personal relevance to Himself. In this He sets a matchless example.
If the crossbeam was tied to the nape of the Lord’s neck, it would have been impossible for Him to turn round and talk, as it is specifically stated that He did. I would reconstruct that the Lord collapsed, and Simon was forced to carry the cross, whilst the Lord followed on, scarcely conscious. Before collapsing again, with the result that He was carried to the cross, He used His last and final energy at the time to speak to those women. He used His last bit of mental and physical strength to preach- to women whom He knew were not going to really respond. For He said they should weep for themselves, He knew they would not listen to His warning to flee Jerusalem in AD70. But such was His hopefulness for people, that He still made the effort to communicate rather than get lost within Himself and His own thoughts as I would have tended to.
14 They arrived at the destination. " Outside the
city walls was permanently located the heavy upright wooden stipes,
on which the patibulum [which Christ carried] would be secured"
(Edwards, op cit.). The Lord would doubtless have meditated
upon it. The cross was waiting. All He had to do was carry the cross
bar. His invitation to men to carry the cross to the place where
the other part of that instrument of death was already prepared
must be seen in this light. The way for our self-crucifixion is
prepared. We carry but the cross bar.
To give strong drink to those ready to perish was a well known custom at crucifixion. The fact victims survived two or three days was only because they were given drink. The Lord didn't simply refuse the pain killer. He took it, tasted it, and then refused it. Why did He first taste it? Surely He knew the custom, and He knew what it was. Various alternatives arise in the mind, each a source of devotional inspiration:
- Was it that His eyesight was damaged by the punches and He didn't see what it was until He tasted it? " When Jesus therefore saw his mother..." may suggest that He didn't initially recognize her. The Messianic Scriptures mention the affliction of eyesight in Messiah's final suffering. Early crucifixion art shows the Lord with His right eye damaged (as does the Turin shroud). The mucous membrane (the thin slippery tissues which lubricate the human body) would have dried so that “they rip layers of tissues from the eyes every time the pupil is moved or blinked" (C.M. Ward).
- Maybe He realized as He had the cup on His lips that they were giving this to Him in the spirit of Jer. 23:15: to show that He was a false prophet. In this case, for the sake of His respect for the implications of Holy Scripture, He endured a far higher degree of pain.
- Another explanation is that He wanted to speak out loud, saying (several times?) " Father, forgive them" , and to perhaps recite Psalm 22. He was so parched from thirst (He had lost body fluid in Gethsemane) that He knew He couldn't speak out loud without some liquid. The dehydration would have made His tongue thicken so that speech was eventually almost impossible. But He only drank enough to moisten His throat, not to deaden any pain. This shows the majestic self-mastery within the Lord; He knew just when to stop, even though it must have been so tempting to keep on drinking.
- Taking the pain killer would not have been a sin, neither would it have theologically damaged the atonement. Perhaps the Lord took it, as doubtless the others did, and then had the self-control to think better of it and give it back. Such was His devotion to the absolute height of identity with us. It makes His action all the more poignant if He first tasted and then refused, rather than just refusing outright.
He was repeatedly offered the pain killer, the tense implies. Men offering Him myrrh in (mock) homage would have sent His mind back to the story dear Mary had told Him about the wise men bringing myrrh. And inevitably her tortured mind would have gone back there too. But I have another suggestion. When we read that “someone" offered him a sponge with wine mixed with myrrh (Mk. 15:36; Mt. 27:48), we recall the use of myrrh in preparing bodies for burial (Mk. 14:3; Lk. 23:56; Jn. 12:3; 19:39). Pliny (Natural History 14.15.92,107) records: “The finest wine in early days was that spiced with the scent of myrrh…I also find that aromatic wine is constantly made from almost the same ingredient as perfumes, from myrrh". This alerts me to the real possibility that the unnamed bystander who did this was Mary Magdalene. Earlier she had anointed the Lord’s body with myrrh “to the burial". And now she has prepared the most expensive form of wine as some sort of pain killer. Perhaps the Lord was so touched by this that He accepted it, but didn’t drink it. His doing this is otherwise very hard to understand. Her love was on one hand inappropriate, and yet the Lord still accepted it, even though He couldn’t use it. He could have felt angry with her for tempting Him to the easier way. But He didn’t. And in so doing He showed her that the essence of the cross is that there is no easy way. The principles of all this are to be reflected in our cross carrying.
Another alternative presents itself from the Hebrew text of Ps. 69:21: “They gave me also gall". The Hebrew can stand the translation ‘poison’ (see RSV). Given the extended, agitated torture of crucifixion, there was a custom for close friends to get close enough to the cross to lift up a poisonous substance which the crucified would lick, and thereby die quickly. It is just possible that a friend (or even his mother?) or a sympathetic soldier did this. Again, in this case it would seem that the Lord chose the highest level; our salvation would surely have been theologically achievable if He had taken it. But He chose to attain for us not only salvation, but “such great salvation" by always taking the highest level. He became obedient not only to death, but “even the death of the cross".
(1) W.D. Edwards, On The Physical Death Of Jesus Christ, JAMA March 21 1986, Vol. 255 No. 11).