Lyela Julia Edelman Brandeis Comerford (1880-1946), the descendant of an interesting and pioneering Jewish family in Los Angeles and wife of Judge Frank D Comerford (1879-1929)
Patrick Comerford
In the past, I have written about Judge Frank D Comerford (1879-1929), the Chicago judge, Democratic politician, journalist and author, and his nephew, the Very Revd Professor Comerford Joseph O’Malley (1902-1991)who was President and Chancellor of DePaul University, Chicago.
They were members of an interesting branch of the Comerford family which once had homes in Kinvara, Co Galway, and Ballykeel House, Kilfenora, Co Clare.
In my research in recent days, I have also come across the story of Judge Frank Comerford’s wife, Lyela Julia Edelman Brandeis Comerford (1880-1946), the descendant of an interesting and pioneering Jewish family in Los Angeles.
Lyela Comerford was a granddaughter of the first resident rabbi in Los Angeles, a niece of both the architect and a president of the best-known synagogue in Los Angeles, Wilshire Boulevard Temple. and she was a sister-in-law of one of the passengers who died on the Titanic in 1912.
With her family background, and Hollywood connections, and life on Park Avenue in Manhattan, many may have thought Lyela Comerford was born to a glamorous society or star-filled life. Instead, she was widowed twice, and was swindled and defrauded by another husband.
Her first husband was a member of a prominent Jewish business and legal family who gave their name to a ‘Hidden Ivies’ university; her second husband was a fraudster who swindled her out of her immense widow’s fortune; and her third husband, Judge Frank Comerford, was the descendant of a prominent branch of the Comerford family in Co Galway.
Rabbi Abraham Wolf Edelman (1832-1907), grandfather of Lyela Julia Edelman Brandeis Comerford
Lyela Julia Edelman was born on 2 March 1880 in Los Angeles, California. She was the daughter of Benjamin W Edelman (1853-1922) and Laura Morris Studebaker (1863-1939). Benjamin Edelman’s father and Lyela Comerford’s grandfather was Rabbi Abraham Wolf Edelman (1832-1907), the pioneer rabbi of Los Angeles. He was born in Poland in 1832, he married Hannah Pessah Cohn in Warsaw in 1851, and they then moved to the US. Eight years later, they were living in San Francisco, where Abraham continued his Hebrew studies, teaching Hebrew, and for a time acting as a dry goods salesman.
When Rabbi Edelman arrived in the pueblo of Los Angles, it was still a wild west frontier town. Joseph Newmark (1799-1881), the founder of the first Ashkenazic congregation in New York and then the organiser of the Jewish community in Los Angeles, persuaded Abraham Edelman to come to Los Angeles as its first full-time rabbi and Jewish spiritual leader. He served Congregation B’nai B’rith from its beginnings in 1862 until 1885, and for more than two decades he was the Jewish spiritual leader of Los Angeles.
Rabbi Edelman is said to have been a ‘traditional’ Orthodox rabbi – although this was not quite accurate. There were two good reasons for his move to Los Angeles: the children needed a teacher to help them maintain their Jewish identity and spiritual heritage, and the adults wanted a Jewish spokesman and ambassador. Edelman fulfilled both roles and combined the offices of rabbi and cantor. But he never claimed ordination, and before coming to Los Angeles he had never held a pulpit.
Rabbi Edelman eventually became the victim of his own success and the growth of the Jewish community in Los Angeles. He retired in 1886, although, in reality, he had been eased out in a way calculated to spare the rabbi’s feelings and to protect the congregation.
Joseph Newmark’s nephew, Harris Newmark, who was President of B’nai B’rith Congregation in 1881-1887, claimed Edelman felt he had to resign when the synagogue wanted a more Reform or liberal ritual. But the evidence suggests that Edelman was never part of a truly Orthodox establishment. He had shown signs of non-Orthodox leanings, and allowed mixed seating for men and women, a mixed choir, conformation ceremonies, and English prayers and sermons.
Congregation B’nai B’rith developed a type of Reform Judaism that was grounded in tradition yet committed to contemporary relevance. However, despite the community’s growth, Rabbi Edelman lacked the glamour desired in a new era. Los Angeles still loved ‘old Edelman,’ but they decided to sideline him. From June 1885 to June 1886, he served Congregation Ahavai Sholom in Portland, Oregon, but he resigned after a year, citing the ‘dampness of the Oregon climate,’ and returned to Los Angeles.
Abraham and Hannah Edelman were the parents of six children, two daughters and four sons, including: Benjamin W Edelman (1853-1922), the father of Lyela Julia (Edelman) Comerford; Abram M Edelman (1863-1941), a prolific architect in Los Angeles; and Dr David W Edelman. Congregation B’nai B’rith was rebuilt in the Moorish style in 1929 and soon after was renamed the Wilshire Boulevard Temple; its president at the time was Dr David W Edelman and its architect was Abram M Edelman, sons of the founding rabbi and uncles of Lyela Brandeis Comerford.
The Wilshire Boulevard Temple, formerly Congregation B’nai B’rith, is a Reform congregation and synagogue and the oldest and one of the largest Jewish congregations in Los Angeles. The main building has a large Byzantine Revival dome modelled on the Pantheon in Rome, and the interior murals were commissioned by the Warner Brothers, Jack Harry and Albert.
Wilshire Boulevard Temple has been led by several influential rabbis, including Edgar Magnin, described as the ‘John Wayne’ of rabbis and the ‘rabbi to the stars’, who served for 69 years, from 1915 to 1984. It was designated as a City of Los Angeles Historic Cultural Monument in 1973 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1981.
Wilshire Boulevard Temple, closely linked with Lyela Brandeis Comerford’s family
Lyela Julia (Edelman) Comerford was born in Los Angeles on 2 March 1880. She was 20 in 1900 when she married her first husband, H Hugo Brandeis (1868-1912), at the Los Angeles home of her aunt, Rachel L Barnett (1857-1950), and uncle William G Barnet (1852-1930). The wedding was performed by her grandfather, Rabbi Abraham Edelman, assisted by Rabbi Sigmund Hecht (1849-1925), who had become the senior rabbi in Los Angeles in 1899.
Hugo Brandeis was born in Wisconsin in January 1868. His family owned a large department store chain in Omaha, Nebraska. He was the son of Jonas Leopold Brandeis (1836-1903), a dry goods merchant, and Francesca Teweles (1845-1905), both were Jewish immigrants.
The Brandeis family was once a prominent rabbinic family in Prague. The extended Brandeis family included the Dante scholar Irma Brandeis (1905-1999); and Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856-1941), an associate justice on the US Supreme Court ( 1916-1939), who gave his name to Brandeis University.
Judge Louis Brandeis was the first Jew to be named to the Supreme Court. During his career, he fought railroad monopolies, defended workplace and labour laws, challenged antisemitism and helped create the Federal Reserve System. He criticised the power of large banks, money trusts, powerful corporations, monopolies, public corruption, and mass consumerism. He was a courageous and militant advocate of social justice. He was seen as being incorruptible, was known as the ‘People’s Lawyer’, and The Economist called him ‘A Robin Hood of the law.’
Jonas Leopold Brandeis was from Libeň in Prague, then in the Austrian empire and now the capital of the Czech Republic. Franciska ‘Fannie’ Teweles was born in Prague. They emigrated to the US around 1856 and were married in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, around 1862.
Jonas Leopold Brandeis was the founder of the successful dry goods business, JL Brandeis & Sons. His wife was a wealthy patron of the arts and was a founder of the Wise Memorial Hospital in Omaha and its president from 1901 until she died in 1905. They are buried in Pleasant Hill Jewish Cemetery in North Omaha, also known as Temple Israel Cemetery, the oldest Jewish Cemetery in Nebraska.
Hugo Brandeis was one of four children, and his siblings were: Arthur Donoen Brandeis (1862-1916); Sarah (1867-1936), who married Herman Cohn; and Emil Franklin Brandeis (1864-1912). Emil Brandeis died on the Titanic on 14/15 April 1912. It was falsely rumoured that he tried to sneak onto one of the life boats by putting on a dress. When his body was recovered, he was buried in Pleasant Hill Jewish Cemetery, Omaha.
Hugo Brandeis was the youngest partner in JL Brandeis with his brother and was a prominent dry goods merchant in Omaha. He died at the age of 44 on 21 July 1912 in hospital in Omaha, Nebraska, after an operation, and was buried in Pleasant Hill Jewish Cemetery. He left Leyla a widow with a substantial fortune.
Two years later, Lyela married her second husband, Charles Wesley Turner jr (1885-1941), in London on 27 August 1914. He managed the Brandeis Theatre in Omaha and was also a stockbroker. He had previously been married in 1909 to Etta May Schneider (1886-1969), and when Charles and Etta divorced she returned to live with her parents in Dodge, Nebraska.
In a dramatic turn of events less than four years of their marriage, Charles Wesley Turner was convicted on 26 May 1918 in New York of theft from his wife through a securities fraud of $35,000 – in all, Lyela claimed, he had defrauded her of $325,000. He was later drafted into the US army, and they were divorced in 1919. Turner later married his third wife, Janet Megrew (1904-1988), but they had divorced by 1940, and he died in Chester, New Jersey, on 18 June 1941.
Judge Frank D Comerford (1879-1929) … a judge in Chicago, a Democratic politician, a journalist and an author
Lyela married her third husband, Frank D Comerford (1879-1929), in the Municipal Building in Manhattan, New York, on 10 November 1926. She gave her name as Leyla Studebaker Brandeis, and was living at 570 Park Avenue, a remarkable 13-storey building designed in the Georgian style by the architect Emery Roth (1870-1948).
Frank Comerford was a judge in Illinois, a Democratic politician, a journalist and an author. Their wedding came as a surprise to their friends and was attended only by Lyela’s mother, Laura Morris Studebaker, and ‘a few intimate friends’.
Frank D Comerford was born on 25 September 1879 in Chicago. He was the son of Isaac Comerford (1829-1900) of Kinvara, Co Galway, and Mary ‘Jane’ (Linnane) Comerford (1841-1914). Isaac Comerford of Kinvara was a younger brother of Henry Comerford (1827-1861), a prominent Galway merchant and magistrate who lived at Merchant’s Road, Galway, and Ballykeel House, Kilfenora, Co Clare. Henry bought up the Gregory estate in Kinvara in the 1850s and his post-Famine efforts to impose exorbitant rent increases in the town brought financial ruin to Kinvara and brought the Comerford family to the brink of social and economic disaster.
Isaac Comerford remained in Kinvara as a shopkeeper for about a decade, and married Mary Jane Linnane. Their first seven children were born in Kinvara: Henry (1858), John Henry (1859), Mary (1860), Bridget (1861), Michael (1862), Alice ‘Ella’ (1863) and George Henry (1865). Isaac and Mary Jane Comerford emigrated to the US around 1866, and settled in Chicago, Illinois, and five more children were born there: Elizabeth (1867), Jane (1871), Thomas Joseph (1877), Anne (1878) and Frank (1879).
Frank D Comerford studied at Northwestern University and the Illinois College of Law in Chicago. After graduation, he was admitted to the Illinois State Bar in 1904. Later that year, at the age of 24, Comerford was elected to the Illinois State Senate in November 1904 from the 2nd District, representing part of Cook County, Illinois.
Three months later, Frank D Comerford was expelled from the Illinois State Senate in February 1905 for allegedly besmirching the name of the Senate at a lecture in Chicago in which he accused the Senate of corruption. He was the first elected official expelled from the Illinois legislature.
In a speech at the Illinois College of Law, he claimed the state senate was merely ‘a great public auction, where special privileges are sold to the highest corporation bidders.’ He made specific accusations of wrongdoing, named names, and gave dates and financial details. He tried to protect himself by saying these stories were ‘in common circulation at the Capitol.’
The Illinois legislature quickly passed a resolution that accused Comerford of spreading ‘assertions, slanders, insinuations and incriminations’ that called into question ‘the honour and integrity of the Illinois General Assembly.’ A special committee of the Illinois House of Representatives was hastily established and took extensive testimony before deciding Comerford’s allegations were unfounded.
The report of the special committee was placed before the House on 8 February 1905, and the newly-elected Senator was expelled on a 121-13 vote. Unbowed, Comerford ran for the seat again – this time as an independent – and was re-elected. He was unsuccessful in his bid for re-election in 1906, however, and later accepted a position as police attorney of Chicago under the Democratic mayor, Edward Fitzsimmons Dunne. Comerford set up his own private practice as an attorney in 1917, and after the US entered World War I in 1917 he spent the rest of the war as a public speaker selling bonds on behalf of the Liberty Loan programme.
After World War I, Comerford travelled to London and Paris for six months in 1919. He witnessed at first hand the rapidly changing social and political situation and contributed news reports to the Chicago Tribune. He was a vocal advocate of the US joining the League of Nations, warning that ‘the failure to establish a League of Nations would be a world tragedy and in its wake may come revolution.’
Comerford was the special prosecutor in the 1920 case of William Bross Lloyd and members of the Communist Labor Party of America. The defence attorney Clarence Darrow later defended the teacher John T Scopes in the 1925 Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial, in which he opposed the statesman and orator William Jennings Bryan. Comerford was elected to the bench as a Superior Court judge in Chicago in June 1926.
Frank D Comerford was twice married. On 19 March 1906, he married in Saint Joseph’s Church, Berrien, Michigan, Jean Cowgill (1875-1948). They later divorced, and on 10 November 1926 in Manhattan, he married the widowed Lyela Edelman Brandeis (1880-1946) from Omaha, Nebraska.
The widowed Lyela Brandeis married Frank Comerford in Manhattan on 10 November 1926
Lyela and Frank Comerford spent their honeymoon in Cuba, and then returned to Chicago to live at the Lake Shore Drive Hotel.
Frank Comerford complained of chest pain while visiting his brother’s home in Chicago on 29 August 1929. Two of his nephews, Dr Francis Xavier O’Malley (1895-1974) and Dr John Gabriel O’Malley (1888-1935), were called to the house. Neither doctor found anything obviously wrong, however, and he was not taken to hospital. At 8:55 pm, however, Comerford suffered a massive heart attack and died five minutes later. He was 49 years old. He was buried at Rosehill Cemetery and Mausoleum in Chicago.
After Frank Comerford died, Lyela continued to live in Chicago until 1940, and later lived in Paolo Alto, California. She had been widowed twice, divorced once, and defrauded by one of those hubans. She had no children. Lyela died on 30 July 1946 at the age of 66 in Los Angeles, and she was buried not with Frank Comerford but alongside her first husband, Hugo Brandeis, in Pleasant Hill Jewish Cemetery, Omaha, Nebraska.
Her gravestone names her as Lyela Brandeis Comerford, without any reference to her second husband, Charles Wesley Turner jr.
זכרונה לברכה, May her memory be a blessing.
Lyela Brandeis Comerford’s gravestone in Pleasant Hill Jewish Cemetery, Omaha, Nebraska (Photograph: Mike Hughbanks, Find a Grave)
▼
09 May 2025
Daily prayer in Easter 2025:
20, Friday 9 May 2025
‘Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me’ (John 6: 56) … an icon of Christ the Great High Priest, in a shop window in Thessaloniki (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
Easter is a 50-day season that continues until the Day of Pentecost, and this week began with the Third Sunday of Easter (Easter III, 4 May 2025).
Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, reading today’s Gospel reading;
2, a short reflection;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
The Visitation of Abraham or the ‘Old Testament Trinity’ … a fresco in the Monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Tolleshunt Knights, Essex, interprets a Trinitarian and Eucharistic theme (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
John 6: 52-59 (NRSVA):
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’ 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
‘This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate’ (John 6: 58) … bread in the Avoca shop in Kilmacanogue, Co Wicklow (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
With this morning’s Gospel reading, we are coming to the end of this week’s series of readings in the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse in Saint John’s Gospel, which conclude tomorrow (John 6: 60-69).
This morning’s reading is one of the most explicit Trinitarian passages in the New Testament. Christ speaks to us of the Trinity in terms of the inter-relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, explaining how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work together, dance together, and are inseparable.
We owe our understandings of the Trinity, in terms of doctrine and social understanding, and how we express these understandings to the Cappadocian Fathers. I spent some time in Cappadocia in south-central Turkey ten years because of my interest in sites associated with the three Cappadocian Fathers. These were three key Patristic writers and saints: Saint Basil the Great (329-379), Bishop of Caesarea; his brother Saint Gregory (335-395), Bishop of Nyssa; and Saint Gregory Nazianzus (329-390), who became Patriarch of Constantinople.
They challenged heresies such as Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, and their thinking was instrumental in formulating the phrases that shaped the Nicene Creed – the Church is celebrating the 1,700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed this year.
But their thinking was not about doctrine alone; it was also about living the Christian life. Without the Cappadocian Fathers, would we have turned away from the difficult teachings of Christ, as we find them in this Gospel passage? Would we too have dismissed this passage as a ‘hard saying.’
Although Christ’s words ‘I am the Bread of Life’ are familiar to many Christians, in this passage the disciples declare ‘this teaching is difficult’ (verse 60), as we shall read tomorrow.
Christ is teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum, where he is interpreting a passage of scripture that has already been introduced by the crowd (see verse 31). They want a sign similar to the one of manna given to their ancestors in the wilderness in Sinai.
In response, he declares he is the manna, the ‘bread of life’ (verse 35), just as he has told the Samaritan woman at the well that he is the living water (see John 4: 5-26), and just as he tells the disciples later that he is the true vine (see John 15: 1).
Moses could provide this miraculous bread, but he is not the bread of life. Moses could strike the rock and bring forth water, but he is not the living water. How can Christ himself be bread and wine?
These are such difficult conundrums that they turn many of his listeners away.
Verse 56 says: ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. We translate this and similar passages into English so politely. For example, the NRSV says: ‘Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I them.’ But a more direct translation might say something: ‘Whoever is gnawing on my flesh and drinking my blood remains in me and I in him.’
There are three interesting verbs in this verse: the verb τρώγων (trógon) means to gnaw, crunch, or chew, as in chewing on raw vegetables or fruits, and is subtly different in meaning than the verb ‘eat’ (ἐσθίω, esthío); the verb πίνων (pínon) means to drink; and the verb μένει (ménei) means to remain or abide, yet some of his disciples or about to leave Christ and the twelve are to continue to walk with him.
Verse 57 says: καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι' ἐμέ. ‘Just as the living Father sent me, and I live through the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.’ But, again, we could translate this: ‘As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so also the one gnawing on me also will live because of me.’
Christ is not merely claiming to give the bread: he is the life-giving bread that the Father gives, and, lest his hearers dismiss this as a metaphor, he insists that this bread is his own flesh.
The Greek word here, ἀπέστειλέν (apésteilén) speaks of being sent to or going to an appointed place. The words ζῶν (zon), ζῶ (zo) and ζήσει (zései) speak of living, breathing, and being among the living. Once again, we hear the word τρώγων (trógon), from the verb τρώγω (trógo) to gnaw, crunch or chew.
Verse 58 says: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον: ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ‘This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’
Again, how would you respond if this had been translated more explicitly as ‘This one is the bread that has come down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; whoever gnaws on this bread will live into the age-long.’
We have the contrast between καταβὰς (katavas), from καταβαίνω (katavaíno) to go down, come down, or descend, which contrasts with the later reference in verse 62 to ascending to where the Son of Man was before.
In the first part of this verse, Christ uses the word ἔφαγον (ephagon) to describe eating, rather than the verb used again in the second part, τρώγων (trógon), to gnaw, crunch or chew.
This verse brings us back to the earlier discussion in the Gospel reading on Thursday (John 6: 44-51, see verses 49-51), comparing the temporal nature of the manna in the wilderness with the everlasting nature of Christ’s own bread or flesh. It is a reminder that this chapter begins with the feeding of the 5,000 near the time of the Passover, an explicit echo of the Manna story from the Exodus journey through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
They murmur and mutter, and the word used here is the same word used in the Exodus story (see, for examples, Exodus 15: 24; 16: 2) for the murmuring, muttering and grumbling of the people who have just experienced being liberated from slavery yet are not willing to accept the consequences of staying on the journey. They do not trust God to take care of them. Over and over, with questions of water, food, and physical safety, the Israelites play out the same drama of whether they will trust God to care for them.
Once again, people who are on a journey with God turn away. This turning away is the very opposite to the metanoia (μετάνοια), the turning around of conversion.
They are no longer willing to stay the course, they turn away from journeying with Christ, journeying with him to Jerusalem, journeying with him to the Cross, journeying with him to the promise of new life. They are scandalised.
The phrase here reminds me of the common phrase, the Scandal of the Cross or the Scandal of the Gospel, although the phrase as such appears nowhere in the New Testament.
Some of Christ’s disciples have only understood his words in a literal way.
There are many today who hold up a literal interpretation of some obscure and contended passages of scripture, including, for example, some on sexuality, but who reject a literal interpretation of the passages in this ‘Bread of Life’ discourse in Saint John’s Gospel.
They cannot, will not, and refuse to accept Christ’s corporal presence, body and blood, in the Eucharist, however we may come to understand that. It sometimes seem this is the one passage whose literal interpretation is a stumbling block, a scandal, to them.
When they ask whether you have invited Christ into your life, they would be scandalised were you to answer you do that every time you pray the Prayer of Humble Access, every time you receive him in the Eucharist, asking that ‘we may evermore dwell in him and he in us’.
There is little point in arguing that people at the time had no understanding of this Gospel passage as looking forward to the Last Supper and beyond that to the Eucharistic celebrations of the Early Church.
It was written not for the people who were present at the time, but written 50 or 60 years later and would have been first heard by people dealing with the divisions in the Pauline and Johannine communities that came together in the Church in Ephesus. In a lectionary reflection in the Church Times [14 August 2015], Dr Bridget Nicholas pointed out that the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is the Fourth Gospel’s counterpart to the narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels.
The writer of this Gospel is addressing a small community of Christians in Ephesus, for whom linear time is displaced by the fact that they already know the divine identity of Christ. And the life that Christ offers to his own people is being worked out in practical ways by the recipients of the Letter to the Ephesians.
In this Gospel story, as in the Exodus story, this murmuring, muttering and grumbling shows a complete lack of trust, belief and faith in God. And this is not just intellectual assent, but a willingness to make life-changing decisions.
In this week’s Gospel readings, the twelve are the ones who ‘abide’ with Christ. They stick with him even though his teaching is difficult. They stay with him at the Last Supper, and even though they will scatter during his trial and crucifixion, their faith is strengthened, returns in full vigour with the Resurrection and is fortified at Pentecost.
But the people who desert Christ in this week’s Gospel reading, who turn away, are not ‘the crowds’ – they are ‘disciples.’ They had followed Christ and believed in him, but now they leave.
Abandoning the Eucharistic faith and practice of the Church is often the first step in abandoning the Church, abandoning Christ, and turning backs on the call to love God and love one another.
If we take part regularly and with spiritual discipline in the Eucharist, we realise that it is not all about me at all. This bread is broken and this cup is poured out not just for us but also for the many.
It is interesting that the parishes with infrequent celebrations of the Eucharist are often the most closed, the ones most turned in on themselves, unwilling to open their doors to those who are different in social and ethnic background, with irregular relationships and lifestyles, and the parishes that err on the side of judgmentalism.
Regular reception of this Sacrament is a reminder that the Church exists not for you and for me but for the world, and that the Church is not for those who decide subjectively they are the ‘called’ and the ‘saved,’ but is there to call the world into the Kingdom.
In the Eucharistic prayers, we use words such as: ‘this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins’. In two Gospel passages we read: ‘for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Matthew 26: 28); and ‘this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Mark 14: 24).
It is clear that the Eucharist, while celebrated among the disciples or within the community, is for the benefit of ‘the many.’ The Eucharist is the shape of ‘the mission-shaped Church.’
Knowing and belief come together, knowledge is meaningless without wisdom, faith goes beyond accepting facts.
As Canon Patrick Whitworth points out in one of his books, for the Cappadocian Fathers, doctrine, prayer and pastoral ministry are inseparable from care for the poor [Patrick Whitworth, Three Wise men from the East: the Cappadocian Fathers and the Struggle for Orthodoxy (Durham: Sacristy Press, 2015)].
The profession of faith by Simon Peter in tomorrow’s reading is followed immediately by a cautious and disturbing remark by Christ about betrayal (verses 70-71), although the compilers of the Revised Common Lectionary have omitted them. Judas is going to walk out at the Last Supper. Is a regular refusal to eat this bread and to drink this cup a betrayal of Christ and of the Christian faith?
The word sacrament is derived from the Latin sacrāmentum, which is an attempt to render the Greek word μυστήριον (mysterion). Saint Paul asks the people of Ephesus to pray that he may be given a gift of the right words in telling of the ‘mystery of the Gospel’ (τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, to mysterion tou evangeliou) (Ephesians 6: 19).
What if this Gospel reading is a reminder of the heart of the Gospel, the mystery of the Gospel?
Yes, it would affirm, the Eucharist is the shape of ‘the mission-shaped Church.’
Christ is risen!
The Lord is risen indeed. Alleluia!
‘But the one who eats this bread will live for ever’ (John 6: 58) … bread on display in a bakery in Frankfurt (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Friday 9 May 2025):
My prayers today include Pope Leo XIV, the former Cardinal Robert Prevost, who was elected at the Papal Conclave in the Sisine Chapel in the Vatican late yesterday (8 May).
‘Inconvenient Migration’ provides the theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church’, the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel). This theme was introduced on Sunday with Reflections from Carol Miller, Church Engagement Manager, USPG.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Friday 9 May 2025) invites us to pray:
God of compassion, we ask for merciful and just decisions by leaders around the globe as policies are made and implemented.
The Collect:
Almighty Father,
who in your great mercy gladdened the disciples
with the sight of the risen Lord:
give us such knowledge of his presence with us,
that we may be strengthened and sustained by his risen life
and serve you continually in righteousness and truth;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
Living God,
your Son made himself known to his disciples
in the breaking of bread:
open the eyes of our faith,
that we may see him in all his redeeming work;
who is alive and reigns, now and for ever.
Additional Collect:
Risen Christ,
you filled your disciples with boldness and fresh hope:
strengthen us to proclaim your risen life
and fill us with your peace,
to the glory of God the Father.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
The Gate of Persecution leading into the site of the Basilica of Saint John the Divine in Ephesus (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org
Patrick Comerford
Easter is a 50-day season that continues until the Day of Pentecost, and this week began with the Third Sunday of Easter (Easter III, 4 May 2025).
Before today begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, reading today’s Gospel reading;
2, a short reflection;
3, a prayer from the USPG prayer diary;
4, the Collects and Post-Communion prayer of the day.
The Visitation of Abraham or the ‘Old Testament Trinity’ … a fresco in the Monastery of Saint John the Baptist in Tolleshunt Knights, Essex, interprets a Trinitarian and Eucharistic theme (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
John 6: 52-59 (NRSVA):
52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ 53 So Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; 55 for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’ 59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue at Capernaum.
‘This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate’ (John 6: 58) … bread in the Avoca shop in Kilmacanogue, Co Wicklow (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
With this morning’s Gospel reading, we are coming to the end of this week’s series of readings in the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse in Saint John’s Gospel, which conclude tomorrow (John 6: 60-69).
This morning’s reading is one of the most explicit Trinitarian passages in the New Testament. Christ speaks to us of the Trinity in terms of the inter-relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, explaining how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit work together, dance together, and are inseparable.
We owe our understandings of the Trinity, in terms of doctrine and social understanding, and how we express these understandings to the Cappadocian Fathers. I spent some time in Cappadocia in south-central Turkey ten years because of my interest in sites associated with the three Cappadocian Fathers. These were three key Patristic writers and saints: Saint Basil the Great (329-379), Bishop of Caesarea; his brother Saint Gregory (335-395), Bishop of Nyssa; and Saint Gregory Nazianzus (329-390), who became Patriarch of Constantinople.
They challenged heresies such as Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ, and their thinking was instrumental in formulating the phrases that shaped the Nicene Creed – the Church is celebrating the 1,700th anniversary of the Nicene Creed this year.
But their thinking was not about doctrine alone; it was also about living the Christian life. Without the Cappadocian Fathers, would we have turned away from the difficult teachings of Christ, as we find them in this Gospel passage? Would we too have dismissed this passage as a ‘hard saying.’
Although Christ’s words ‘I am the Bread of Life’ are familiar to many Christians, in this passage the disciples declare ‘this teaching is difficult’ (verse 60), as we shall read tomorrow.
Christ is teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum, where he is interpreting a passage of scripture that has already been introduced by the crowd (see verse 31). They want a sign similar to the one of manna given to their ancestors in the wilderness in Sinai.
In response, he declares he is the manna, the ‘bread of life’ (verse 35), just as he has told the Samaritan woman at the well that he is the living water (see John 4: 5-26), and just as he tells the disciples later that he is the true vine (see John 15: 1).
Moses could provide this miraculous bread, but he is not the bread of life. Moses could strike the rock and bring forth water, but he is not the living water. How can Christ himself be bread and wine?
These are such difficult conundrums that they turn many of his listeners away.
Verse 56 says: ὁ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα καὶ πίνων μου τὸ αἷμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μένει κἀγὼ ἐν αὐτῷ. We translate this and similar passages into English so politely. For example, the NRSV says: ‘Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I them.’ But a more direct translation might say something: ‘Whoever is gnawing on my flesh and drinking my blood remains in me and I in him.’
There are three interesting verbs in this verse: the verb τρώγων (trógon) means to gnaw, crunch, or chew, as in chewing on raw vegetables or fruits, and is subtly different in meaning than the verb ‘eat’ (ἐσθίω, esthío); the verb πίνων (pínon) means to drink; and the verb μένει (ménei) means to remain or abide, yet some of his disciples or about to leave Christ and the twelve are to continue to walk with him.
Verse 57 says: καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι' ἐμέ. ‘Just as the living Father sent me, and I live through the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.’ But, again, we could translate this: ‘As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so also the one gnawing on me also will live because of me.’
Christ is not merely claiming to give the bread: he is the life-giving bread that the Father gives, and, lest his hearers dismiss this as a metaphor, he insists that this bread is his own flesh.
The Greek word here, ἀπέστειλέν (apésteilén) speaks of being sent to or going to an appointed place. The words ζῶν (zon), ζῶ (zo) and ζήσει (zései) speak of living, breathing, and being among the living. Once again, we hear the word τρώγων (trógon), from the verb τρώγω (trógo) to gnaw, crunch or chew.
Verse 58 says: οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, οὐ καθὼς ἔφαγον οἱ πατέρες καὶ ἀπέθανον: ὁ τρώγων τοῦτον τὸν ἄρτον ζήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. ‘This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like that which your ancestors ate, and they died. But the one who eats this bread will live for ever.’
Again, how would you respond if this had been translated more explicitly as ‘This one is the bread that has come down out of heaven, not as the fathers ate and died; whoever gnaws on this bread will live into the age-long.’
We have the contrast between καταβὰς (katavas), from καταβαίνω (katavaíno) to go down, come down, or descend, which contrasts with the later reference in verse 62 to ascending to where the Son of Man was before.
In the first part of this verse, Christ uses the word ἔφαγον (ephagon) to describe eating, rather than the verb used again in the second part, τρώγων (trógon), to gnaw, crunch or chew.
This verse brings us back to the earlier discussion in the Gospel reading on Thursday (John 6: 44-51, see verses 49-51), comparing the temporal nature of the manna in the wilderness with the everlasting nature of Christ’s own bread or flesh. It is a reminder that this chapter begins with the feeding of the 5,000 near the time of the Passover, an explicit echo of the Manna story from the Exodus journey through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
They murmur and mutter, and the word used here is the same word used in the Exodus story (see, for examples, Exodus 15: 24; 16: 2) for the murmuring, muttering and grumbling of the people who have just experienced being liberated from slavery yet are not willing to accept the consequences of staying on the journey. They do not trust God to take care of them. Over and over, with questions of water, food, and physical safety, the Israelites play out the same drama of whether they will trust God to care for them.
Once again, people who are on a journey with God turn away. This turning away is the very opposite to the metanoia (μετάνοια), the turning around of conversion.
They are no longer willing to stay the course, they turn away from journeying with Christ, journeying with him to Jerusalem, journeying with him to the Cross, journeying with him to the promise of new life. They are scandalised.
The phrase here reminds me of the common phrase, the Scandal of the Cross or the Scandal of the Gospel, although the phrase as such appears nowhere in the New Testament.
Some of Christ’s disciples have only understood his words in a literal way.
There are many today who hold up a literal interpretation of some obscure and contended passages of scripture, including, for example, some on sexuality, but who reject a literal interpretation of the passages in this ‘Bread of Life’ discourse in Saint John’s Gospel.
They cannot, will not, and refuse to accept Christ’s corporal presence, body and blood, in the Eucharist, however we may come to understand that. It sometimes seem this is the one passage whose literal interpretation is a stumbling block, a scandal, to them.
When they ask whether you have invited Christ into your life, they would be scandalised were you to answer you do that every time you pray the Prayer of Humble Access, every time you receive him in the Eucharist, asking that ‘we may evermore dwell in him and he in us’.
There is little point in arguing that people at the time had no understanding of this Gospel passage as looking forward to the Last Supper and beyond that to the Eucharistic celebrations of the Early Church.
It was written not for the people who were present at the time, but written 50 or 60 years later and would have been first heard by people dealing with the divisions in the Pauline and Johannine communities that came together in the Church in Ephesus. In a lectionary reflection in the Church Times [14 August 2015], Dr Bridget Nicholas pointed out that the ‘Bread of Life’ discourse is the Fourth Gospel’s counterpart to the narrative of the institution of the Lord’s Supper in the Synoptic Gospels.
The writer of this Gospel is addressing a small community of Christians in Ephesus, for whom linear time is displaced by the fact that they already know the divine identity of Christ. And the life that Christ offers to his own people is being worked out in practical ways by the recipients of the Letter to the Ephesians.
In this Gospel story, as in the Exodus story, this murmuring, muttering and grumbling shows a complete lack of trust, belief and faith in God. And this is not just intellectual assent, but a willingness to make life-changing decisions.
In this week’s Gospel readings, the twelve are the ones who ‘abide’ with Christ. They stick with him even though his teaching is difficult. They stay with him at the Last Supper, and even though they will scatter during his trial and crucifixion, their faith is strengthened, returns in full vigour with the Resurrection and is fortified at Pentecost.
But the people who desert Christ in this week’s Gospel reading, who turn away, are not ‘the crowds’ – they are ‘disciples.’ They had followed Christ and believed in him, but now they leave.
Abandoning the Eucharistic faith and practice of the Church is often the first step in abandoning the Church, abandoning Christ, and turning backs on the call to love God and love one another.
If we take part regularly and with spiritual discipline in the Eucharist, we realise that it is not all about me at all. This bread is broken and this cup is poured out not just for us but also for the many.
It is interesting that the parishes with infrequent celebrations of the Eucharist are often the most closed, the ones most turned in on themselves, unwilling to open their doors to those who are different in social and ethnic background, with irregular relationships and lifestyles, and the parishes that err on the side of judgmentalism.
Regular reception of this Sacrament is a reminder that the Church exists not for you and for me but for the world, and that the Church is not for those who decide subjectively they are the ‘called’ and the ‘saved,’ but is there to call the world into the Kingdom.
In the Eucharistic prayers, we use words such as: ‘this is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins’. In two Gospel passages we read: ‘for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Matthew 26: 28); and ‘this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many’ (Mark 14: 24).
It is clear that the Eucharist, while celebrated among the disciples or within the community, is for the benefit of ‘the many.’ The Eucharist is the shape of ‘the mission-shaped Church.’
Knowing and belief come together, knowledge is meaningless without wisdom, faith goes beyond accepting facts.
As Canon Patrick Whitworth points out in one of his books, for the Cappadocian Fathers, doctrine, prayer and pastoral ministry are inseparable from care for the poor [Patrick Whitworth, Three Wise men from the East: the Cappadocian Fathers and the Struggle for Orthodoxy (Durham: Sacristy Press, 2015)].
The profession of faith by Simon Peter in tomorrow’s reading is followed immediately by a cautious and disturbing remark by Christ about betrayal (verses 70-71), although the compilers of the Revised Common Lectionary have omitted them. Judas is going to walk out at the Last Supper. Is a regular refusal to eat this bread and to drink this cup a betrayal of Christ and of the Christian faith?
The word sacrament is derived from the Latin sacrāmentum, which is an attempt to render the Greek word μυστήριον (mysterion). Saint Paul asks the people of Ephesus to pray that he may be given a gift of the right words in telling of the ‘mystery of the Gospel’ (τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, to mysterion tou evangeliou) (Ephesians 6: 19).
What if this Gospel reading is a reminder of the heart of the Gospel, the mystery of the Gospel?
Yes, it would affirm, the Eucharist is the shape of ‘the mission-shaped Church.’
Christ is risen!
The Lord is risen indeed. Alleluia!
‘But the one who eats this bread will live for ever’ (John 6: 58) … bread on display in a bakery in Frankfurt (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Friday 9 May 2025):
My prayers today include Pope Leo XIV, the former Cardinal Robert Prevost, who was elected at the Papal Conclave in the Sisine Chapel in the Vatican late yesterday (8 May).
‘Inconvenient Migration’ provides the theme this week in ‘Pray With the World Church’, the Prayer Diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel). This theme was introduced on Sunday with Reflections from Carol Miller, Church Engagement Manager, USPG.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Friday 9 May 2025) invites us to pray:
God of compassion, we ask for merciful and just decisions by leaders around the globe as policies are made and implemented.
The Collect:
Almighty Father,
who in your great mercy gladdened the disciples
with the sight of the risen Lord:
give us such knowledge of his presence with us,
that we may be strengthened and sustained by his risen life
and serve you continually in righteousness and truth;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
Living God,
your Son made himself known to his disciples
in the breaking of bread:
open the eyes of our faith,
that we may see him in all his redeeming work;
who is alive and reigns, now and for ever.
Additional Collect:
Risen Christ,
you filled your disciples with boldness and fresh hope:
strengthen us to proclaim your risen life
and fill us with your peace,
to the glory of God the Father.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible: Anglicised Edition copyright © 1989, 1995 National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. http://nrsvbibles.org