Lenski:
Mark has the most to say in regard to Simon. He was a “Cyrenian,” one who hailed from Cyrene but was now a resident in Jerusalem, one of the many Cyrenians dwelling there (Acts 2:10). The exceptional feature is the fact that Simon is identified by a reference to his sons; Mark speaks of them as if they were well known to his first readers. It is quite unfair to argue that we have no more reason for identifying Rufus with the person who is mentioned in Rom. 16:13 than for identifying Alexander with the man by that name who is mentioned in Acts 19:33 or the other who is mentioned in 1 Tim. 1:20. Rufus could be the one who is mentioned in Rom. 16:13 because this person was godly; not so Alexander because the one who is mentioned in Acts is a Jew, and the one who is referred to in Timothy is an apostate Christian. Mark would never have designated Simon by naming him as being the father of such a son. It has been generally agreed that both sons held positions in the later church that were prominent enough to have them named when their father was to be identified. It has likewise been assumed that Simon’s strange contact with Jesus led to his conversion and thus to the prominence of his sons in the church. The idea that he was already a believer and was pointed out as such to the soldiers by the Jews in order to be forced to carry the cross has nothing to commend it.
