Simon of Cyrene carrying the Cross of Christ

Simon of Cyrene is mentioned as carrying the Cross for Jesus in all the three Synoptic Gospels (Matt.27:31, Mk.15:20, Lk.23:25) as “then they led him away to crucify him. as they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene called Simon; they compelled him this man to carry his Cross”. Nothing else is said of the Way to Calvary, except in Luke where Jesus speaks to the women of Jerusalem. In John (19:16) on the other hand, all we are told is: “So they took Jesus; and carrying his own Cross he went out to the place called the Skull…”. From the narrative it could either be that Jesus carried the Cross “as they led him out” in the Synoptics, which they do not mention, prior to handing it over to Simon, or that the Cross was handed back to Jesus later. John did not find the need to mention Simon carrying the Cross. The first scenario I feel is more likely, since Jesus is at the point of exhaustion following the scourging and unable to carry the Cross very far at all.

The Day of the Last Supper and Crucifixion

The Synoptic Gospels seem to indicate that Jesus’ Last Supper was the Passover Meal, taking place after the lambs had been sacrificed in the Temple. Mark states “on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb was to be sacrificed, Jesus’ disciples asked Him, “Where do You want us to prepare for You to eat the Passover?” (14:12, see also Lk.22:7,8).

However John’s Gospel seems to date the Last Supper one day prior, so that Jesus died on the next day, around the time that the Lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple instead. Verse 18:28 says that the priest would not enter Pilate’s headquarters because they would have been defiled and could not eat the Passover, verse 19:14 says that it was the Day of Preparation for the Passover, verse 19:31 states that the Jews wanted the bodies taken down “since was the Day of Preparation”, and they “did not want the bodies left on the cross on the Sabbath, especially because the Sabbath was a day of great solemnity”. 19:42 indicates it was “the Jewish day of Preparation” when Jesus was laid on the tomb.

Its the Actually same Day

Bloomberg writes: “we see that Chapters 13 to 17 of John are considered to be lengthy instructions given by Jesus to his disciples at the Last Supper. Then in chapter 18 they go to the garden Gethsemane. Notice how chapter 13 begins: “now before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world to the Father, having loved this world, he loved them to the end.” Then verse 2 begins with “during supper..” It seems natural to assume that the refers to the meal just announced in the prior verse and is therefore the Passover meal, just like in the Synoptics.

A week-long Festival

The four meanings of “Passover”.

First, we need to remember that Passover for Jews did not refer to just the Passover meal but also to the Passover week. Passover was not just one meal but a week long celebration. In fact this seems to be how John uses the term throughout his Gospel, referring to the entire Festival of the Passover, not just the opening meal (2:13, 6:4, 11:55).

Judas Leaves- Jn.18:29

In v.29 some disciples believed Judas left to he could buy provisions for the Feast. And the word John uses (heorte- Mk:14:1, Lk2:41, 22:1, John 2:23) typically refers to the week-long festival, not the initial meal. It would seem odd if he was going out to buy perishable food for the Passover supper 24 hours too early. That would have been spoiled overnight, so it was typically done the day of the meal. It makes more sense that some thought Judas was buying provisions used throughout the week, not specifically food for the initial Passover meal the next day (so it was not necessary that Passover itself was the next day, there was a whole week to buy provisions for still to come). Next, others also speculated that Judas was going out to give alms to the poor. This would be unlikely on a random night. But on the first night of Passover (the day of the meal), alms giving was explicitly commanded (Mishnah Pesachim 10:1). Josephus even tells us that Temple gates were left open to the poor could gather and receive alms (Josephus Antiquities 18.2.2).

Defilement concerns John 18:28

“Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover” (John 18:28)

But what about John 18:28 where it says that the Jewish leaders didn’t want to be defiled so that they could eat the Passover. Leviticus 15:5-11 gave the stipulation that  defilement incurred during daylight hours would expire at sunset which is when the initial Passover meal began. So the priests didn’t have to worry about defilement if what they were concerned about was the initial Passover meal which was on Thursday night. However if they didn’t want to be to be defiled for a Passover meal that happened on Friday midday called the Hagigah, that would actually make far more sense. 2 Chronicles 35:7-9 is an example of later offerings and meals during the Passover week could also be called the Passover. Bloomberg says it is true that the later meals are not singled out apart from the initial Passover dinner but if John has already narrated the first meal, readers will understand that it could not be included again.

John 19:14- Day of Preparation

Finally what about John 19:14 where it directly says it was a day of preparation for the Passover? This seems to be a misunderstanding. John is probably not saying it was the Day of Preparation before the Passover meal, but that it was the Day of Preparation during the Passover week. The standard Greek word for the Day of Preparation was used to refer to Friday since that was the day before the Sabbath and the Jews were preparing for it. So John is probably just noting it was Friday during the Passover week that is the day of preparation for the Sabbath during Passover week. This is actually the case in all four gospels and other works Matthew 27:62 refers to Friday as the day of preparation. Mark 15:42 says Friday was called the day of preparation. Luke 23:54 yet again says Friday was called the day of preparation the same could be seen in the Didache (8:1) and the Martyrdom of Polycarp (7:1). Plus if we read just past verse 14, both John 19:31 and 19:42 directly say it was the day of preparation, and that meant it was the day before the Sabbath making it Friday.

Judas’ Death

First we are given an account of Judas’ death in the Gospel of Matthew. He the only detail we are given is “hanged”; absolutely nothing is said about the circumstances of this hanging. Interestingly, the “Field of Blood” is mentioned in both accounts. In Matthew however the fact that Judas died in that field is not mentioned, only that it was purchased with the money earned by his betrayal of Jesus. Matthew states that it is called “Field of Blood” for the reason that the field is purchased by the pharisees with this “blood money” :

“So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests picked up the coins and said, “It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money.” So they decided to use the money to buy the potter’s field as a burial place for foreigners. That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled… “” (Matt.27:5)

In Acts, the narrative at surface reading might seem to be describing Judas being struck down by God, somewhat similar to King Herod who was eaten by worms in the same book after being “struck” by the Angel of the Lord (v.12:23). However we also see that unlike in the case of Herod, there is no mention of supernatural intervention. This raises the possibility of the account in Acts representing no more than a limited view of the actual event. We can harmonize the accounts by imagining that it is merely describing the ultimate end of Judas who received this unceremonious end of falling from the tree from which he hanged (perhaps the branch or the rope eventually gave) and becoming disemboweled, with the conceivable possibilities that it was either through the body having suffered decay and bursting open upon impact, or from falling onto some sharp object from a height like a rock or a stick:

“(Now with the reward for his wickedness Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong (swelled up) and burst open in the middle, and all his intestines spilled out. This became known to all who lived in Jerusalem, so they called that field in their own language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)” (Acts1:18)

A word on the Greek of this translation- it is not obvious as to whether or not there was an actual “fall” in the account from Acts: the two words in question here that are translated most commonly as “fell headlong” are prenes genomenos. The latter word is easy to translate, which is the participial form of ginomai “to become”, thus becoming. Prenes on the other hand is a one-off in the Bible and its derivation seems quite obscure. There could to be a sense in it of prone which is to be face down, as opposed to supine which is face up, being derived from pro which is toward. It is also possible to derive the aspect of swelled, and this is mentioned in the footnotes of at least two translations like the ESV and NRSV. Fall is pipto and there is no sense of this word in the surface reading of prenes genomenes.

Thus we see that St. Luke might merely be describing the ultimate inglorious fate of the body of Judas without even addressing the hanging, since this is not the point of the narrative, here, the context is the choosing of a replacement for him, and in a sense a condemnation of Judas. This is seen in the manner that the Old Testament passage referenced by the author is one that has the theme of replacement rather than betrayal in Matthew.

A second issue is with regard to who bought the field- was it Judas or was it the pharisees? I think here we must hold that once again the author of Acts is not concerned with technicalities, he is content to refer to the field being bought by Judas, where actual buying is done by the pharisees using the money that is his. Hence it is in a sense bought by them vicariously “for” Judas, who wants nothing to do with the ill-gotten gains. The point is that the money is still his in a sense and so also therefore the purchase. The pharisees could not have known that he was off to that same field to hang himself, so we have something of a coincidence here.

Finally to complete the theme of the author of Acts perhaps not concerning themselves with the specifics, he states that the potter’s field comes to be known as the Field of Blood, from the fact of it being the site of Judas’ suicide, whereas the Matthean account states it was from the pharisees’ purchase of the site from the money gained from his betrayal. Once more, the Matthean account seems more focused on the specifics of the narrative, which is what it is, a narrative, whereas in Acts, the context is different, as we have already observed. In truth the reason for the naming could easily have been both aspects- the field was bought with blood money and was also the site of death. Each account gives a single aspect of the reasons that fed into producing the same result.