The Stations of the Cross

The Stations of the Cross

As a child I was brought up in a Christian tradition which saw the Stations of the Cross as a Catholic invention, something to be kept well away from. "Why, even the name Via Dolorosa cried out Roman Catholic!"

Luckily, attitudes have changed with time, and this morning (Good Friday) as I walked into my local church, the words "Stations of the Cross" greeted me on the overhead screen. So our worship today was built around this framework.

In the service today ten "stations" had been selected, covering the time between the last supper and Jesus being laid in a tomb. Each of the ten stations was biblically based with the Bible reading being an integral part of the meditation relevant to the station. The ten stations were:

1.  The Last Supper.   Mark14: 17-26.

2.  The Garden of Gethsemane.   Luke 22: 39-48, 52-53.

3.   Jesus whipped and crowned with thorns.   John 18: 33, 36-38, 19: 1-3.

4.   Pilate condemns Jesus.   John 19: 5a, 14b-17.

5.   Simon carries the cross.   Luke 23:26.

6.   Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem.   Luke 23:27-31.

7.   Jesus is nailed to the cross.   Mark 15:25-32.

8.   Mary and John at the cross.   John 19: 25-27.

9.   Jesus dies.   Luke232: 44-47.

10.  Jesus is buried.   Matthew 27: 57-61.

May I share with you the meditation at the first station?

The Last Supper (introduced by Leonardo Da Vinci's famous painting).

We adore you, O Christ, and we bless you:

Because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.

Reading of Mark 14: 17-26.

Even my close friend whom I trusted, the one who shared my food

has turned against me.

Let us pray: Heavenly Father, your Son instituted his holy supper as our Passover feast, and gave his life for us: Unite us all by faith in him so that we who eat his body and drink his blood may pass with him from death to life. We ask this through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Amen.

Holy God,

Holy and Mighty,

Holy and immortal

Have mercy on us.

I remember how my visit to the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem last year was somewhat of a disappointment. The main problem then, upon reflection, was that the route of the Stations of the Cross was approached as a tourist site rather than as places of meditation. The nature of the visit then did not allow for this. We entered at station V - Simoni-Cyrenaeo crux imponitur - then it was along a busy street to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Inside here, where the stations 10-14 are located, the scene resembled a crowded building site,rather than a place for quiet meditation. Another time, perhaps, this could be different.

I must admit that the quiet meditation in a country church here in my home town was much more meaningful and fulfilling than walking up the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem. 

Following our leader up the Via Dolorosa in Jerusalem.

Laying Jesus in the tomb. A painting inside the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Barabbas

The Terrorist             

                From the time Jesus was taken into custody until he was finally affixed to a cross on which he died, a lot would have happened. Had this happened in 2016, the news media with their  journalists each accompanied by the most recent recording gadgetry, government record keepers and the general inquisitive public with smart phones and tablets would have recorded for posterity all possible angles of the event.

                Sure, various lines would have been blacked out because of national security. Some discussions would have remained within the four cabinet walls. Some information could not be divulged because it was part of an ongoing investigation. Some memories , interpretations and comments would have been very scrambled. But in spite of all of this, a fairly comprehensive and generally accurate report would have been aired to the public.

                But Jesus was not executed last year!

                In the early first century news dissemination such as we have here today did not exist. This fact causes many to ask, "How accurate are the details which we find in the Gospels?" And I suppose we can't blame people for asking, for example :"How was John able to report Jesus' specific words when he was being questioned by Annas after his arrest (John 18:19-23), or the conversation between Pilate and Jesus inside the palace (John 18:33-38)?"

                Similarly the more general proceedings surrounding Jesus' trial often attract a certain amount of scepticism. Many question their historicity. Hence one reads statements such as: "I judge that narrative (referring to the account of events surrounding Barabbas) to be absolutely unhistorical, a creation most likely of Mark himself." This from a biblical studies scholar, John Dominic Crossan. He details the arguments which have lead to his conclusion.

                A conclusion such as this would jar greatly on those who cannot regard anything in the Bible as other than the divine statements of God. For these people the appearance of Barabbas in the passion story, especially the nature of his appearance, is not open for questioning. One must accept as "gospel truth" what is written there. I do not intend to argue whether the Barabbas incident is historical or not. Each of the four evangelists has recorded it. Professor Crossan suggested that Barabbas was Mark's creation. The others followed Mark's lead using the story for their own purposes.

                Mark wrote the following (15:6-15): ⁶Now it was the custom at the Feast to release a prisoner whom the people requested. ⁷A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. ⁸The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did. ⁹"Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?" asked Pilate, ¹⁰knowing it was out of envy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. ¹¹But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead. ¹²"What shall I do then with the one you call the king of the Jews?" Pilate asked them. ¹³"Crucify him!" they shouted. ¹⁴"Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!" ¹⁵Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

                We note from this account that -

1. Releasing a prisoner of the peoples' choice at Passover was an established custom.

2. These were volatile times and a number of terrorists were in prison at the time awaiting execution.

3. The crowd (the chief priests' a rent-a crowd) asked for the release of the terrorist Barabbas.

4. Pilate was not convinced of the guilt of Jesus. He gave the crowd a choice.

5. Pilate succumbed to the wishes of the crowd, released Barabbas and had Jesus flogged prior to being crucified.

                Matthew followed Mark's lead, however he added a number of unfortunate details. These have resulted in so much hatred throughout the centuries.

                Luke in his account does not mention the custom but has the crowd demanding the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate was unable to convince the people that Jesus was innocent. He granted their wish, released Barabbas and handed Jesus over to be Crucified.

John's account varies considerably from the three synoptic Gospels.

1. He writes that Pilate suggests the release of one prisoner as was the custom and proposed Jesus.

2. He makes much less of the choice between Barabbas and Jesus.

3. He does not specifically say that Barabbas was released, only that he had taken part in a rebellion.

                Mark and subsequently the other three evangelists chose to include this Barabbas episode out of all the other aspects of the "trial" which would have occurred. Why was this?  It is not there to satisfy our curiosity about what may have happened there those many years ago. Nor to satisfy the curiosity of their readers at that time. Was it such an important aspect that readers would have been denied a full understanding of what eventuated had it not been included? It has probably been included for us (and their readers) to draw some lessons from it. Looked at from this point of view it is immaterial whether the episode is historically correct or not.

                Here are a few possibilities -

1. Barabbas could truly say, "Jesus died for me." Each of us is a Barabbas in that we are sinners and so we can also say, "Jesus died for me."

2. There is a similarity here to the sacrifice of the two animals on the Jewish Festival of the Day of Atonement. Here one perfect animal was sacrificed and the other, burdened with the sins of the nation, was released.

3. Mark's Gospel was written after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. Leading up to its final destruction the city chose rebellion over unarmed protest. They chose Barabbas, the terrorist, over Jesus who preached a different approach. This story then is a symbolic dramatisation of Jerusalem's fate.

                So what does Barabbas mean? No, it's not just a story . Am I Barabbas? Am I Pilate and must, like him, make a decision? We must choose what to make of this story.

Jesus' Trial

The Trial

With Holy Week now upon us it is not unusual for conversation among members of Christian communities to turn towards those events which are recorded as having taken place during this last week of Jesus' life. So it was not especially out of left field when I asked a legal friend of mine what he made of Jesus' trial.

"Jesus' trial? You mean trials, don't you?"

So I started again: "Say, what do you think about Jesus' trials?"

 "Trials, lynch parties, kangaroo courts, court reporters, prophecy historicised. It all very confusing to me too."

"Thanks, that clears it all up for me. So what are you main problems?" I am always interested in a discussion. "You mentioned there were a number of trials. Let's start there."

"Well, if you take the Gospel accounts at face value, and not go into a number of problems which biblical scholars see in them, there are at least three trials. If "trial" is the right word."

"Three?"

"Yes, three! Looking at Mark's Gospel we read that Jesus was first taken to the high priest's place where, during the night, the chief priests, elders and teachers came together with the Sanhedrin and held what I consider a kangaroo court. Next morning the decision was reached that the death penalty should be imposed. That I see as the first trial. Then he was taken to Pilate's place where the second trial took place."

"Yes, I can see that can be regarded as two trials; but what about the third?"

"We need to go to Luke's Gospel for that. It's often forgotten when looking at Passion week. Here Luke tells us that Pilate, when he realised that Jesus was a Galilean, sent him to Herod who happened to be in Jerusalem at that time. Herod Antipas was the tetrarch ruling the Galilee region. As described by Luke, this trial was also somewhat of a sham. But it is seen as a trial."

"OK, that's three. Any more?"

"No, they are the three and when you think about it, they are interesting in themselves. You have the three seats of authority against which Jesus was campaigning - the Romans, the religious leaders and the Herodian civic ruler. So each of these three points of authority have a hand in Jesus fate. By the way, have you ever read the Gospel of Peter?"

"The Gospel of Peter? I've read the two letters of Peter, but no Gospel."

"The Gospel of Peter is not in the New Testament canon. It was mentioned early in the history of the church but sections believed to belong to this book were only rediscovered in Egypt in the nineteenth century."

"Why do you mention that?"

"Well, in this account there is mention of Jesus being questioned before all three of these rulers, Herod, Pilate and the Jewish leaders."

"You say the same three leaders, all together? Would that make four trials?"

"So your question what I make of Jesus' trial (or trials) is not so easily answered."

"OK, I give up. But what about the verdict?"

"Don't get me started there! Let's leave it at he was crucified, and the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, was the head man in Judea at the time.

Jesus was arrested and taken to Caiaphas, the high Priest, for his first trial. A relief on a wall at the site of Caiaphas's palace.

Peter's Denial

The Rooster

                If among Christian circles one mentions the rooster crowing, or as the King James Version has it "the cock crowing", one can be confident that the same event recorded in the Bible will come to mind. That event concerns Peter's threefold denial of his connection to Jesus at the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. A quick check of Strong's Concordance of the Bible - his John 18:15 reference being the KJV - indicates that the only occurrence of "cock crowing" is associated with Peter's denial of Jesus. It make sense then that all minds end up here.

                This is also one of those Bible episodes which has captured the imagination of the non-Christian population and had become part of our cultural vocabulary. Most people can quote that 'before the cock crows you shall deny me' ; or is it 'before the cock crows you shall deny me thrice'; or is it 'before the cock crows twice you shall deny me thrice'? Whatever. There is something instilled in the back of memories. (My New International Version of the Bible has chosen to go with rooster rather than cock so I shall follow their lead.

That pesky rooster at the Church of St Pierre en Gallicante in Jerusalem. Well he woke Peter up to what he had done!

                Zeroing in on the rooster's crowing in Jerusalem I finished up at the Church of Saint Pierre en Gallicante. Why there? This church (St Peter and the Rooster Crowing) is built over the generally accepted site of the residence of the high priest, Caiaphas. The church is controlled by a French Roman Catholic order, the Assumption Fathers, and so has retained its French title.

                This church then is the logical site at which to remember that fateful evening when Peter got into the passion story for all the wrong reasons.

                Let us look at Mark's account (14:53-54 and 66-72): ⁵³They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, elders and teachers of the law came together. ⁵⁴Peter followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest. There he sat with the guards and warmed himself at the fire.   ....    ⁶⁶While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant girls of the high priest came by. ⁶⁷When she saw Peter warming himself she looked closely at him. "You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus," she said. ⁶⁸But he denied it. "I don't know or understand what you're talking about," he said and went into the entryway. ⁶⁹When the servant girl saw him there , she said again to those standing around," This fellow is one of them." ⁷⁰Again he denied it. After a little while, those standing near Peter said, "Surely you are one of them for you are a Galilean."⁷¹He began to call down curses on himself, "I don't know this man you're talking about." ⁷²Immediately the rooster crowed the second time. Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken to him: 'Before the rooster crows trice you will disown me three times.' And he broke down and wept.

                What is immediately recognised is that this account of Peter's denial acts as a Markan frame on the account of Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin here in the home of the high priest. The text can be divided as follows:

Mark 14:53-54   Story 1a                Peter follows his Lord to the high priest's house.

Mark 14:55-65   Story 2                  Jesus is questioned and clearly states who he is.

Mark 14:66-72   Story 1b               Peter is questioned and denies knowledge of Jesus.

                Looked at together, the contrast between the reactions of Peter and Jesus is very marked. Peter is questioned (three times indeed!) and fails dismally. Jesus is questioned and boldly, in the face of his opponents, answers "I am" to the high priest's question of who he was.

"I don't know him." Peter warming himself beside the fire in the courtyard of the high priest, Caiaphas.

Many might question the historicity of this episode. How could these details be known? How could it be known what went on inside the walls of Caiaphas' house? Would Peter himself be likely to broadcast his involvement? Leaving aside this debate, the importance of the story for the reader is its metaphorical meaning - the message it should convey to those who heard it. These are those initial readers of Mark's Gospel but also all others leading up to us today.

                Yes, we are reading Mark's words 2000 years after they were written. Even in his wildest imagination Mark would not have realised that this would be the case. He was writing purely for his audience at that time. (The biblical scholars are unsure about who they might have been or indeed where they might have lived.) In presenting these incidents in the way which he has he surely is directing a message specifically for these readers.

                Persecution of Christians had been going on from the very first. Initially this was by the Jewish authorities and then by the Romans. One can assume that Mark's readers, circa 70AD, would have been targeted by the Romans. This story of Peter and Jesus depicts the choices that could be made - bold confession or denial in the face of persecution..

                But that does not leave us, the readers of today, out of the equation. We today are often faced with the same challenge, although repercussions of making a positive confession would be much less drastic and life threatening than that faced by Mark's readers.

                Finally a personal example. Sitting in the golf club house after a round we were discussing this and that. I mentioned that I would be away for a few weeks because I was going on a pilgrimage to Israel.

                "What, are you one of those Bible Bashers?"

                "Well, not so much a Bible Basher, whatever you might mean by that, but a simple Christian who accepts Jesus as his Saviour."

                "Oh."

                And the topic changed to politics. Everyone still plays golf with me.

Kiss of Judas

The Kiss

Sculpture in the garden of old Caesarea Maritima, Israel.

                A tall, green, unusual sculpture attracted my attention while walking through the "food court" of old, royal city of Caesarea Maritima on the blue Mediterranean sea. I don't remember its title, if indeed one was affixed, but it did remind me of a painting my wife and I saw at the Belvedere Palace art museum in Vienna. (Actually it was a painting we especially went there to view.) It was that well-known painting entitled "The Kiss" by the Austrian painter Gustav Klimt. This was a gold, glittering creation of a loving relationship between a man and a woman.

                The whole atmosphere of Klimt's work contrasts so markedly with the scene , as I picture it, of Judas kissing his master who was then arrested and taken off to his trial. In the garden, the scene of Jesus' arrest, it was dark with the torches of the arresting soldiers casting eerie shadows. Shadows played on Jesus' tired face. The flickering light picked out an emotionally shattered man. Hiding in semi-darkness, behind the light, was the shifty figure of Judas. Judas was leading those who arrested Jesus. Mark relates how this would be carried out. He writes, (Mark 14:44)  Now the betrayer had arranged a signal with them. 'The one I kiss is the man; arrest him and lead him away under guard.'

                That he was arrested and executed is now history. Throughout the Christian world, but not only there, people are aware of the story that Judas, a friend and follower of Jesus, betrayed him with a kiss. We have our information of this from the Gospels of the New Testament. Let's see exactly what these sources have to say.

                Mark 14:45-46. Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Rabbi!" and kissed him. The men seized Jesus and arrested him.

                Matthew 26:49-50. Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him. Jesus replied, "Friend, do what you came for" (or "Friend, why have you come?"). Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him.

                Luke 22:47. He (Judas) approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?"  Then after the scuffle when the ear of the servant of the high priest was cut off and Jesus asked his captors why they didn't do this in the temple courts, they seized him and lead him away.

                Finally John 18:3-8. So Judas came to the grove, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons. Jesus, knowing all that was going to happen to him, went out and asked them, "Who is it you want?"

"Jesus of Nazareth," they replied.

"I am he," Jesus said. (And Judas the traitor was standing there with them.) When Jesus said, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground.

Again he asked them, " "Who is it you want?"

And they said, "Jesus of Nazareth."

"I told you, I am he," Jesus answered. "If you are looking for me, then let these men go."

Then later in verse 12: Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus.

Mosaic in the Church of All Nations in the Garden of Gethsemane.

After reading the four relevant passages, one is left with two conflicting scenarios. The three synoptic Gospels indicate that Judas kissed Jesus (Matthew and Mark) or was about to (Luke). This was enacting a previously arranged plan which Judas had organised with those who were to arrest Jesus. John however has no mention of a kiss of betrayal. It is Jesus who takes the initiative. He approached the soldiers and then handed himself over to them. It reflects what Paul also understood when he wrote  in Ephesians: Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.

                No, no mention of a kiss in John's Gospel. It would be hard to see how a kiss would be meaningful in his version of events.

                As we are all well aware, general consensus has gone with the synoptic gospels and the kiss of Judas has become an integral part of the passion story and firmly entrenched in the minds of ensuing generations. With Easter fast approaching I am sure all Christians who choose to attend a church service during this time will once again hear of the kiss of Judas. After all, this adds much more drama to the story.

                Whether it was a dastardly betrayal which involved a kiss or simply an event in which one of Jesus' followers aided in the handing over of Jesus to the soldiers, is immaterial in the final result. Jesus was taken and lead off to his earthly end.

                I read one commentator who suggested that Mark was describing what might have happened and John was presenting his thoughts on what should have happened. I wonder what really did happen?

Judas Iscariot

The Betrayer

                I could highlight those Judas actions from the Gospels of which you are well aware or devise a fate suitable for such a diabolical Son of Satan, other than those given by Matthew and Luke.  Or I could spend some time scouring my Thesaurus to find the worst possible adjectives to describe the heinous deeds of this nefarious character. However I thought it might be interesting to see what the apostle Paul has to say about Judas in his letters which form such an important part of the New Testament.

                A question we can ask is this: Was Paul aware of a specific action perpetrated by one of Jesus' closest disciples, Judas Iscariot, which facilitated his arrest and subsequently lead to his death? Aware, as we are, of Paul's close relationship with the establishing and growth of the early Christian Church, it is hard to imagine that he was not. But can one find in his writing or other relevant documents from that time, substantial evidence one way or the other? Where, other that in contemporary literature, can one search?

                Paul was not a follower of Jesus during the Lord's ministry in Palestine, but he was aware of the activities of his early followers. The New Testament records that Paul (Saul) was present at the stoning of an early believer, Simon, and he was also involved in an wave of persecution against the early Christ followers (Acts 7:58 - 8:3). Later, after his Damascus Road experience and his becoming a disciple of the risen Christ he spent time in Jerusalem discussing and debating with the leaders of the church who had been close disciples of Jesus throughout his ministry.

                It seems unlikely then that the name of Judas Iscariot and his involvement in the events leading up to the death of Jesus would not have come up in discussions. Whether it did or didn't is a matter of pure supposition. Nowhere has it been recorded; so we really do not know.

                Our question should rather be: Do Paul's writings mention Judas and show him to be a traitor? 

                It may surprise some people to realise that the name Judas, or Judas Iscariot as he is also called, is not mentioned at all in any of Paul's writings. Yes, that is a fact! Paul has not seen the need to mention that villain which Christianity has reviled for the last two thousand years. This may appear a little surprising but not overly so. There are many people associated with the life and work of Jesus who are recorded in the four Gospels that receive no mention in Paul's writings. His letters were written to resolve specific practical and theological matters arising in the various congregations for which he assumed oversight. Those which we do have do not aim to present biographical facts about Jesus which could include detail of his work and relationships.

Darkness falls.

In terms of the handing over (betrayal) of Jesus his letters seem to present a more general theological view, rather than a specific report of the event such as is found in the Gospels. Kim Paffenroth in his book, Judas, Images of the Lost Disciple, writes, "Paul mentions several times that Jesus was "handed over"(παραδϊδωμϊ) to death, but this is usually presented as a theological statement of the meaning and purpose of Jesus' mission, not a description of the historical facts of Jesus' life"(p.1).

                When mentioning that Jesus was "handed over", or "delivered", or "betrayed", Paul always used the same Greek word (παραδϊδωμϊ) but with various agents responsible for the actual deed. These can be seen in the following texts.

No agent

Romans 4:25.  (Jesus our Lord) "who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification".

God as agent

Romans 8: 32. "He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things in him?

Jesus himself as the agent

Ephesians 5:2. "And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God".

Galatians 2: 20. "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."

                Then there is that passage which one hears nearly every Sunday when the pastor recites the words of institution for the Lord's Supper which come from 1 Cor.11:23. We listen to "on the night when he was betrayed, took....." and we think of Judas' act. But we are thinking with information from the Gospels. When Paul penned these words the Gospels had not yet been written so would his readers have the picture of Judas' betrayal in mind? Nowhere does Paul indicate that Judas was the agent responsible for the act of handing over (betraying)Jesus to his enemies.

                Something for us to think about.

Art on the Golan Heights. Shot in the back? Well perhaps.

Christ's Agony

The Agony

                Jesus, according to Judas' statement in John's Gospel, was in the habit of going to the peace and quietness of the Garden of Gethsemane after a hassling day in Jerusalem. It was on his way back to Bethany where he was staying during Passover week and so was a good, convenient place to unwind from the noise and bustle of a crowded city. He would sit down, talk things over with his disciples or perhaps merely sit, meditate and pray.

                This Thursday night was different. Sharing the Passover meal with his friends should have been a happy occasion; but it wasn't. There were tensions. The disciples could feel it but they couldn't quite put their finger on what was happening. But that wasn't surprising or Mark had shown throughout his Gospel they weren't the brightest lights on the landscape.

                Jesus could see what was happening. Everything was closing in on him. He could see the reluctance in the disciples even though Peter claimed that he would die rather than disown Jesus. Then Judas had been talking to the chief priests. clearly organising something. Jesus also felt that his passion for the Kingdom of God that had been driving him throughout his ministry had not been received as he had hoped. Rather than win the religious hierarchy over to his way of thinking, his actions and message had alienated them. He could also see that the Roman authorities were being more and more involved. This was dangerous, for if perceived him as a threat to their idea of law and order there was only one result.

                Now it was late and Jesus was tired. he was disappointed and he was very worried. As Mark puts it (14:33) "He began to be deeply distressed and troubled." The emotional stress of what appeared to be at that time a disappointing public ministry had caught up with him. To emphasise this Mark had Jesus say, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death."

                In his hour of desperation Jesus Prays. He calls on God, knowing that here he will find help. He doesn't want to face torture and death at the hands of the foreign rulers, and prays that this might not happen. But in all of this his complete trust is in God  and in placing himself in the hands of God.

                He fell to the ground in a posture of complete obeisance. Tradition has claimed that he prayed on a rock and this takes us into the Church of All Nations, also known as the Church of the Agony. This imposing building is situated right next to the "remaining" garden of Gethsemane. Inside this church, located in front of the high altar is an area of bare rock - the rocky ground on which Jesus prayed. Fixed to the perimeter of the rock is a wrought iron depiction of the crown of thorns which added to Jesus physical agony before the crucifixion. This heightens the perception of agony which the worshipper/pilgrim can feel when visiting this church.

The façade of the Church of all Nations.

The church is very memorable because of its facade, four massive Corinthian columns supporting a large colourful mural. The mosaic on the facade depicts Jesus Christ as Mediator between God and man. It also is on the list of those churches built by Antonio Barluzzi for the Franciscan Custody of the Holy land.

                The name, Church of All Nations derives from the fact that the cost of construction was met by donations from a number of countries from around the world (not ALL the countries however!). Australia? Yes, we  donated the ornamental crown of thorns which surrounds the rock of agony in front of the altar.

                I have recently read a short prayer by the German martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, which seems relevant here and in our everyday life: Father in heaven you have granted me so many blessings, now may I also accept the burdens from your hand. You will not load me with more than I can carry. Lord, whatever this day may bring, your name be praised.

                Which in turn reminded me of Job's reply to his wife when she advised him to "curse God and die" when he sent suffering. Job's answer (2:10): You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God and not trouble?

Remembering Christ's passion in sombre colouring.