Drayton House, home of the Department of Economics at UCL, which owes its origins to the politician and economist David Ricardo (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
Patrick Comerford
Friends’ House and Drayton House form one impressive block at the corner of Euston Road and Gordon Street, London, opposite Euston Station. The building includes Friends’ House, the central offices and library of the Quakers in Britain, with a peaceful garden, and Drayton House, which houses the Department of Economics of University College London (UCL).
The imposing block is familiar to the many thousands of people who walk out from Euston Station onto Euston Road, and when I am meeting people in London, I often arrange to meet them at the café or in the secluded gardens there.
Friends’ House and Drayton House are close to Bloomsbury, Saint Pancras and King’s Cross. The block was built in a neo-Georgian style 100 years ago, in 1924-1928, to the design of the architect Hubert Lidbetter.
The plaque to David Ricardo on the Gordon Street frontage of Drayon House was unveiled in 2005 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
However, few commuters and rail users, I imagine, notice the small discreet plaque at the Gordon Street end commemorating David Ricardo (1772-1823), who was only the second person of Jewish birth to have been elected an MP, and who has been described as ‘Britain's greatest economist’.
The plaque to David Ricardo on the Gordon Street frontage of Drayon House was unveiled 20 years ago, on 21 August 2005. The Chair of Political Economy at UCL was created in 1828 with the assistance of funds raised to commemorate Ricardo, establishing the first Department of Economics in England.
The plaque is so discreet that it is not even mentioned in Jewish London, the comprehensive guidebook produced by Rachel Kolsky and Roslyn Rawson.
David Ricardo, ‘Britain's greatest economist’ and Ireland’s first Jewish-born MP (Source: Thomas Phillips/Wikpedia/Common Licence)
David Ricardo became the first Jewish-born MP in Ireland when he became the MP for Portarlington on 20 February 1819. Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) was not elected until 1837, and although he had been born Jewish, he had been baptised at the age of 12 in 1817. Lord George Gordon had converted to Judaism in 1787, seven years after he lost his seat in Parliament.
Other MPs may have had Jewish parents, but only two Jewish-born MPs were elected before Disraeli: Sir Manasseh Masseh Lopes (1755-1831), who converted to Christianity in 1802, the year he was elected, and the political economist David Ricardo, who became MP for Portarlington on 20 February 1819.
David Ricardo was born in London on 18 April 1772, the third of 17 children of a Sephardic Jewish family of Portuguese descent who had recently moved to London from Amsterdam. The Ricardo family removed from Livorno in Tuscany to Amsterdam in the late 17th or early 18th century, and family members were prominent in the Jewish community in Amsterdam.
His father, Abraham Ricardo, wa a successful stockbroker on the Amsterdam Bourse and was naturalised in London in 1771. In 1773, he was appointed to one of the 12 brokerships reserved for Jews in the City of London. David Ricardo’s mother, Abigail Delvalle, was the daughter of a tobacco merchant.
David had a traditional Jewish upbringing. His family may have thought he had the potential to become a rabbi, and it is said he attended the Talmud Torah in Amsterdam in 1783-1785. But he returned to London and began working with his father at the age of 14 in 1786.
At the age of 21, he eloped with Priscilla Anne Wilkinson, a Quaker – a detail that becomes interesting in the coincidence that Friends’s House and Drayton House form one block. Their marriage led to his estrangement from his family, and the Ricardo family ‘went into mourning for him as if he was dead.’ His father disowned him and his mother never spoke to him again, although he was left £100 in his father’s will ‘in token of forgiveness.’
Forced to find his own independence, Ricardo went into business on his own with the support of Lubbocks and Forster, a banking house. He was an innovative economic thinker and was also closely involved in the city’s financial history. His work initiated the now dominant tradition of economic analysis rooted in systematic theoretical modelling. To this day, his insights into the principles of trade and public finance remain pertinent.
As a trustee of the early modern Stock Exchange, he was a member of the Committee of Proprietors that decided in 1801 to reconstitute it on a private subscription basis and subsequently helped oversee the execution of the plan. He later played a leading role in syndicates contracting loans that financed the Napoleonic wars. He made the bulk of his fortune speculating on the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, when he reportedly ‘netted upwards of a million sterling’ – an impressive sum at the time.
Ricardo retired immediately, bought Gatcombe Park, an estate in Gloucestershire now owned by Princess Anne, and he was appointed the High Sheriff of Gloucestershire in 1818-1819.
He declined an invitation In November 1816 to contest a by-election in Worcester. In December 1817, Ricardo’s agent Edward Wakefield negotiated with Lord Portarlington’s agent to buy his interest in the ‘rotten borough’ of Portarlington in Queen’s County (now Co Laois), ‘at the market price of the day’, as part of a loan agreement for the debt-laden Irish peer.
Portarlington was a ‘rotten borough’ with just a handful of electors and was controlled by the Dawson family of Emo Court. But the deal fell through because ‘Lord Portarlington found there was nothing to be got by returning an opposition man.’
Ricardo then considered several borough seats, including Wootton Bassett and Fowey. However, in August 1818, he finally secured Lord Portarlington’s borough for £4,000 as part of the terms of a loan of £25,000.
Ricardo took his seat as an Irish MP on 20 February 1819, and he sat in the House of Commons as a Whig until his death five years later. Although Portarlington was a ‘rotten borough’ and he never visited his constituents, Ricardo was a supporter of parliamentary reform and religious toleration and he voted for Catholic relief on 3 May 1819.
JL Mallet noted that Ricardo, notwithstanding his slender footing in the House, his Jewish name and his shrill voice, obtained great attention and was cheered in the House of Commons throughout his first speech. A few days later, the Duke of Wellington met Ricardo at a large party at Lady Lansdowne’s and congratulated him on his speech.
Ricardo was an earnest reformer in Parliament, seeking an inquiry into the Peterloo massacre, and supporting free trade, criminal law reform and the abolition of the death penalty.
Ricardo died on 11 September 1823 from an infection of the middle ear that spread into the brain and induced septicaemia. He was 51. He was buried in Saint Nicholas churchyard in Hardenhuish, near Chippenham, Wiltshire.
Ricardo’s writings fascinated a number of early socialists in the 1820s, who thought his value theory had radical implications. Later, his eldest son, Osman Ricardo (1795-1881), was MP for Worcester (1847-1865); another son, David Ricardo (1803-1864), was MP for Stroud (1832-1833).
During Ricardo’s life, London had no university and Jews were unable to graduate at either of the existing universities in England – Oxford and Cambridge – because of religious restrictions. When UCL was founded in 1826, three years after Ricardo’s death, it was with a commitment to provide opportunities for university education to people of all religious beliefs.
After Ricardo’s death, his friends in the influential Political Economy Club – including Robert Malthus and John Stewart Mill – raised funds as a ‘tribute to his genius’, to perpetuate his memory through the delivery of lectures on the subject of political economy. When the university appointed Ricardo’s follower, John Ramsay McCulloch, to its first chair in Political Economy these funds were transferred to UCL to support teaching the subject.
The plaque at Drayton House honouring David Ricardo and his association with the foundation of the Department of Economics at UCL, was unveiled by Thomas Sargent, President of the Econometric Society, during the 2005 World Congress of the Econometric Society.
The plaque to David Ricardo on the Gordon Street frontage of Drayon House was unveiled in 2005 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
There is no evidence in Ricardo’s life of any particular interest in Jewish religious or communal affairs. He maintained cordial relations with the younger members of his family – some of whom seceded from Judaism – and during a visit to Amsterdam in 1822 he sought out some of his Dutch family members, including his sister’s son, the poet Isaac da Costa (1798-1860).
In 1823, he wrote, ‘It appears to me a disgrace to the age we live in, that many of the inhabitants of this country are still suffering under disabilities, imposed on them in less enlightened times. The Jews have most reason to complain, for they are frequently reproached with following callings which are the natural effects of the political degradation in which they are kept. I cannot help thinking that the time is approaching when these ill-founded prejudices against men on account of their religious opinions will disappear, and I should be happy if I could be an humble instrument in accelerating their fall.’
McCulloch wrote in 1846 that young Ricardo abandoned the Jewish religion of his upbringing. But Joseph Jacobs and JH Hollander in the Jewish Encyclopaedia point out there is no evidence of any formal apostasy, and that ‘it is more reasonable to hold that virtual alienation resulted from marriage outside of the Jewish faith and that the severance of family ties followed.’
The late Asher Benson, in his Jewish Dublin (Dublin: A&A Farmar, 2007), says, ‘Although there is no evidence that he converted to Christianity, he must have sworn allegiance to that faith in order to be admitted to Parliament.’
The law excluding any member of the Jewish religion from Parliament unless he swore an oath of abjuration remained in place until the 1850s.
No other Jewish-born MP was elected to represent an Irish constituency until 1892, when Gustav Wilhelm Wolff (1834-1913), the Hamburg-born co-founder of Harland and Wolff, was elected for East Belfast. But Wolff too had converted to Christianity, and was a member of the Church of Ireland and of the Orange Order.
The first Jewish member of the new Irish Parliament after independence was Ellen Odette Cuffe (1857-1933), Countess of Desart, who was appointed to the Free State Senate by WT Cosgrave in 1922. She was born Ellen Odette Bischoffsheim, and she was a leading philanthropist in Co Kilkenny, where she lived at Cuffesgrange. She has been called ‘the most important Jewish woman in Irish history.’
The first Jewish TD, Robert Briscoe (1894-1969), was elected to the Dáil in 1927, over a century after Ricardo took his seat, and he remained a Fianna Fail TD until 1961. He also served two terms as Lord Mayor of Dublin.
May his memory be a blessing, זיכרונו לברכה
Shabbat Shalom, שבת שלום
Emo Court in Co Laois, the home of the Earls of Portarlington when they sold the ‘rotten borough’ of Portarlington to David Ricardo in 1819 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
▼
13 June 2025
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2025:
35, Friday 13 June 2025
A summer wedding in a monastery in Crete … but today’s Gospel reading may bring us to ask whether a marriage should last longer than love (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
The 50-day season of Easter, which began on Easter Day (20 April 2025), came to an end on Sunday with the Day of Pentecost or Whit Sunday (8 June 2025), and once again in the Church Calendar we are in Ordinary Time.
I am about to head off on the bus to Oxford, where I am going to spend much of the day in the Churchill Hospital with a another series of tests and consultation monitoring my pulmonary sarcoidosis and its impact on my heart. 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.
Enjoying a summer wedding (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Matthew 5: 27-32 (NRSVA):
[Jesus said:] 27 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.
31 ‘It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’
Wedding flowers strewn on the lawn at Lisnavagh House in the late evening … what happens when love fades in a marriage? (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
The Gospel reading at the Eucharist today (Matthew 5: 27-32) continues our readings from the Sermon on the Mount, and, at first, the statements on adultery, divorce and remarriage may sound harsh and judgmental. So, this morning, I am going to look carefully at this passage in some detail before any further reflection or coming to any conclusions.
Verses 27-28:
‘You have heard’ … the Mosaic code states that you shall not commit adultery. Legally, adultery is sex with another person’s partner, more specifically, with another man’s wife. Under the Mosaic Law, consensual sex between two people who were not married was settled in marriage and so legally it was not adultery. However, adultery carried the death penalty (see Leviticus 20: 10; Deuteronomy 22: 22). But when it comes to God’s perfect law, lust is as good as the deed, thus ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’
In this passage, ‘a woman’ (γυνή, gynē) implies specifically a married woman. When a man looks at her lustfully, he already conjures up the thoughts and the images of intercourse with her. But here the construction may also express the result.
Verses 29-30:
We now move to two parabolic sayings in which Christ speaks of the crucial importance of taking any necessary measures to control any excessive passions that flare out of control (see also Matthew 18: 8-9; cf Mark 9: 43-48). These sayings are more like crisis parables than ethical illustrations.
Of course, Christ is not advocating radical surgery or self-mutilation, nor is he suggesting that this kind of surgery can rid us of sinful desires will be exorcised. Nor is he saying we must blind ourselves to what is wrong, in the sense of closing our eyes to it, like the three monkeys who ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.’ But we must deal radically with sin, and the language of hyperbole expresses radical action.
Verses 31-32:
Is divorce always against the will of God? Is the ‘one-flesh relationship’ between a man and a woman to be permanent and for all time? What does the Apostle Paul have to say? Where may the law end and grace begin?
Think of the consequences in those days for a woman if her husband divorced her. And whatever about a man divorcing his wife, what about a woman divorcing her husband?
The Mosaic law, recognising the human condition, regularises marital separation by the requirement of a ‘document of dismissal’ (Deuteronomy 24: 1). By the time of Jesus, this had become little more than publicly-sanctioned adultery. But where the Church has taken the ideal and enshrined it in legalism, have we become more like the Scribes and the Pharisees? Christ exposes our state of sin, but does he seek to burden us with a weight too hard to bear? Is this an ideal to strive after or a law to be obeyed?
There is an exception, but Matthew alone notes this, while Mark and Luke give no grounds at all for ending a marriage. Matthew is describing cases where one partner has destroyed marriage through πορνεία (porneía), which can refer to illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, intercourse with animals, sexual intercourse with close relatives, sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman. It is the word that gives us ‘pornography’, but it is also used throughout the Bible to talk about the worship of idols and the defilement of idolatry, incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.
The word was originally used of sex with a prostitute, but took on a wider sense to include all sexual acts outside of marriage. In Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, the ground for a divorce was ‘something indecent’, but Christ now severely limits the understanding of what constitutes an ‘indecent’ act.
Should a man divorce his wife for other reasons, he is effectively trying to condemn her as an adulteress. In Jewish society it would be extremely difficult for a woman to survive without a husband. A divorced woman would be forced to take another husband and be seen as an adulterer. The responsibility for this situation properly rests on the man who divorced her.
Reflecting on the reading:
I wince and even imagine physical pain when it comes to the discussion of physical mutilation in the first part of this reading.
As a priest who is divorced and remarried, I find the topics in this reading a challenge every time I read it, even though I have dealt with these topics on many occasions when I have preached in a parish and pastoral context, in preparing couples for marriage, and in my own life. I wish some of my priest colleagues had been as generous to me in the recent past as I hope they are to their own parishioners when it comes to providing true pastoral care, understanding and support.
Later in this Gospel (Matthew 19: 11-12), the discussion about divorce and remarriage causes me even greater confusion and all my attempts to understand its context still leave me in search of meaning and understanding. But then even the text itself warns that some readers will not be able to receive what is being said.
Jesus’ words seem to find echoes in Saint Paul’s writings when, for example, he seems to advocate remaining single if someone is called to do so (see I Corinthians 7: 24-28), yet says it is wrong to forbid marriage to anyone (I Timothy 4: 1-3). However, both Jesus and Paul stress that relatively few people were called to a life of celibacy, a lifestyle that was generally unacceptable socially in their time.
People who go through a marriage breakdown and divorce, and still cling on to going to church, perhaps just by their fingernails, may well ask, ‘Where is the Good News this morning?’
The Pharisees were divided on the legality of divorce and the grounds for divorce. The Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife, if he finds ‘something objectionable about her’ (Deuteronomy 24: 1). It never said a woman could divorce her husband.
A man could simply ‘write a certificate of dismissal’, without going through any formal legal proceedings. ‘Something objectionable’ could cover a multitude, from adultery to an eccentric hair-do on a bad hair day. Indeed, by the time of Christ, divorce was allowed for the most trivial of reasons, and was so common that many women suffered.
There are other places in the New Testament where Christ, and Saint Paul and Saint Peter, accept that a man may divorce an unfaithful wife. Saint Mark alone mentions the possibility of women also divorcing. This may have been normal in non-Jewish contexts, but cases of Jewish women initiating divorce are rare.
Christ devotes much of his teaching time interpreting scripture in a way that gives priority to human wellbeing. For example, the Sabbath is made for us rather than we being made for the Sabbath. Similarly, we could say he is saying here that the order of marriage is made for us, not that we are made for the ordering of marriage, or worrying about the minutiae in the details religious people construct around marriage.
The way Christ interprets scriptural law ought to provide a clue to how we interpret his teaching.
Today, many of us may appear to be on the side of the Pharisees on the question of divorce. Divorce is common today and most of us accept it as a reality. Our laws and our customs, like those of the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts, assume divorce happens.
Christ appears to be harsh and uncompromising on a first reading this morning. But many marriages get stale or toxic, relationships can dry up or lose focus, self-destruct, or break down. Things go wrong for far too many reasons.
A divorce may be a burial for a dead marriage. Divorces do not kill marriages any more than funerals kill people … although one of the great tragedies today is that far too many couples are burying their relationship when it is only sick or injured.
Is it not possible that the promise to be together until death can refer to the death of the relationship as well as the death of the person?
Is it not possible to recall that the original intent of our loving and caring God who gave us the gift of marriage was to make our lives better?
Does that desire of God evaporate when we are no longer in a marriage?
In other Gospel passages, when Jesus is asked about divorce and remarriage, people are trying to set a trap for him. But marriage is not a trap and not a matter of expediency in which the wife is the property of the husband.
Of course, the covenant of marriage is still just as valid today. Ideally, when two people marry, they commit themselves to an exclusive relationship of love and devotion in a new entity. But it is easier to say thar than it is to face up to reality, which includes the complexities of child-rearing, careers and competing religious, social and economic claims and responsibilities.
Ideally, we are not to live alone, but in loving and committed relationships. Indeed, in an ideal world, there would be no such thing as divorce. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a fallen and broken world in which human nature always falls short of the glory of God. Whether we like it or not, divorce is a reality and we have to live with that.
Sadly, when people go through a divorce, the church is often the last place they can turn to for help and understanding.
But divorce is like a death. It is the death of a relationship, and so people grieve, and they need sympathy and to be consoled. Would we dare chastise someone who was grieving after the death of a family member?
I was reminded once by a divorced priest in the Church of Ireland that when God says: ‘I hate divorce ... I hate divorce’ (Malachi 2: 16), that of course God hates divorce because God has gone through the sufferings and grieving of divorce through our faithlessness and wandering.
God hates divorce because God has suffered divorce.
It was a profound insight.
Too often, in debates, passages of Scripture taken out of context, or one-sided interpretations of the tradition of the Church can be used to set a trap so that people are forced to accept only one standard or practice for marriage in the world today. Let us not use this reading to trap Jesus through hardness of heart. And let us not use this reading to trap vulnerable, suffering and grieving people who remain open to loving and being loved.
We must face questions about marriage and divorce, about who can be married and who can be divorced, as challenges that ask us to think outside the box, without trying to trap Jesus or to trap those who are faced with honest questions about marriage and about divorce.
‘If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away’ (Matthew 5: 29) … posters for an exhibition seen in Vienna (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Friday 13 June 2025):
‘Pentecost’ is the theme this week (8-14 June) 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 by Dr Paulo Ueti, Theological Advisor and Regional Manager for the Americas and the Caribbean, USPG.
The USPG prayer diary today (Friday 13 June 2025) invites us to pray:
Spirit of God, in the same way as you did at Pentecost, humble us to open your word up to all who may want to hear it, making us faithful ambassadors of Christ.
The Collect:
O Lord, from whom all good things come:
grant to us your humble servants,
that by your holy inspiration
we may think those things that are good,
and by your merciful guiding may perform the same;
through our Lord Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
Gracious God, lover of all,
in this sacrament
we are one family in Christ your Son,
one in the sharing of his body and blood
and one in the communion of his Spirit:
help us to grow in love for one another
and come to the full maturity of the Body of Christ.
We make our prayer through your Son our Saviour.
Yesterday’s Reflection
Continued Tomorrow
‘Gracious God, lover of all, in this sacrament … help us to grow in love for one another’ (the Post Communion Prayer) … Communion vessels in the Harvard Chapel in Southwark Cathedral (Photograph Patrick Comerford, 2023)
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
The 50-day season of Easter, which began on Easter Day (20 April 2025), came to an end on Sunday with the Day of Pentecost or Whit Sunday (8 June 2025), and once again in the Church Calendar we are in Ordinary Time.
I am about to head off on the bus to Oxford, where I am going to spend much of the day in the Churchill Hospital with a another series of tests and consultation monitoring my pulmonary sarcoidosis and its impact on my heart. 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.
Enjoying a summer wedding (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Matthew 5: 27-32 (NRSVA):
[Jesus said:] 27 ‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.
31 ‘It was also said, “Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.” 32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’
Wedding flowers strewn on the lawn at Lisnavagh House in the late evening … what happens when love fades in a marriage? (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
The Gospel reading at the Eucharist today (Matthew 5: 27-32) continues our readings from the Sermon on the Mount, and, at first, the statements on adultery, divorce and remarriage may sound harsh and judgmental. So, this morning, I am going to look carefully at this passage in some detail before any further reflection or coming to any conclusions.
Verses 27-28:
‘You have heard’ … the Mosaic code states that you shall not commit adultery. Legally, adultery is sex with another person’s partner, more specifically, with another man’s wife. Under the Mosaic Law, consensual sex between two people who were not married was settled in marriage and so legally it was not adultery. However, adultery carried the death penalty (see Leviticus 20: 10; Deuteronomy 22: 22). But when it comes to God’s perfect law, lust is as good as the deed, thus ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’
In this passage, ‘a woman’ (γυνή, gynē) implies specifically a married woman. When a man looks at her lustfully, he already conjures up the thoughts and the images of intercourse with her. But here the construction may also express the result.
Verses 29-30:
We now move to two parabolic sayings in which Christ speaks of the crucial importance of taking any necessary measures to control any excessive passions that flare out of control (see also Matthew 18: 8-9; cf Mark 9: 43-48). These sayings are more like crisis parables than ethical illustrations.
Of course, Christ is not advocating radical surgery or self-mutilation, nor is he suggesting that this kind of surgery can rid us of sinful desires will be exorcised. Nor is he saying we must blind ourselves to what is wrong, in the sense of closing our eyes to it, like the three monkeys who ‘see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.’ But we must deal radically with sin, and the language of hyperbole expresses radical action.
Verses 31-32:
Is divorce always against the will of God? Is the ‘one-flesh relationship’ between a man and a woman to be permanent and for all time? What does the Apostle Paul have to say? Where may the law end and grace begin?
Think of the consequences in those days for a woman if her husband divorced her. And whatever about a man divorcing his wife, what about a woman divorcing her husband?
The Mosaic law, recognising the human condition, regularises marital separation by the requirement of a ‘document of dismissal’ (Deuteronomy 24: 1). By the time of Jesus, this had become little more than publicly-sanctioned adultery. But where the Church has taken the ideal and enshrined it in legalism, have we become more like the Scribes and the Pharisees? Christ exposes our state of sin, but does he seek to burden us with a weight too hard to bear? Is this an ideal to strive after or a law to be obeyed?
There is an exception, but Matthew alone notes this, while Mark and Luke give no grounds at all for ending a marriage. Matthew is describing cases where one partner has destroyed marriage through πορνεία (porneía), which can refer to illicit sexual intercourse, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, intercourse with animals, sexual intercourse with close relatives, sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman. It is the word that gives us ‘pornography’, but it is also used throughout the Bible to talk about the worship of idols and the defilement of idolatry, incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols.
The word was originally used of sex with a prostitute, but took on a wider sense to include all sexual acts outside of marriage. In Deuteronomy 24: 1-4, the ground for a divorce was ‘something indecent’, but Christ now severely limits the understanding of what constitutes an ‘indecent’ act.
Should a man divorce his wife for other reasons, he is effectively trying to condemn her as an adulteress. In Jewish society it would be extremely difficult for a woman to survive without a husband. A divorced woman would be forced to take another husband and be seen as an adulterer. The responsibility for this situation properly rests on the man who divorced her.
Reflecting on the reading:
I wince and even imagine physical pain when it comes to the discussion of physical mutilation in the first part of this reading.
As a priest who is divorced and remarried, I find the topics in this reading a challenge every time I read it, even though I have dealt with these topics on many occasions when I have preached in a parish and pastoral context, in preparing couples for marriage, and in my own life. I wish some of my priest colleagues had been as generous to me in the recent past as I hope they are to their own parishioners when it comes to providing true pastoral care, understanding and support.
Later in this Gospel (Matthew 19: 11-12), the discussion about divorce and remarriage causes me even greater confusion and all my attempts to understand its context still leave me in search of meaning and understanding. But then even the text itself warns that some readers will not be able to receive what is being said.
Jesus’ words seem to find echoes in Saint Paul’s writings when, for example, he seems to advocate remaining single if someone is called to do so (see I Corinthians 7: 24-28), yet says it is wrong to forbid marriage to anyone (I Timothy 4: 1-3). However, both Jesus and Paul stress that relatively few people were called to a life of celibacy, a lifestyle that was generally unacceptable socially in their time.
People who go through a marriage breakdown and divorce, and still cling on to going to church, perhaps just by their fingernails, may well ask, ‘Where is the Good News this morning?’
The Pharisees were divided on the legality of divorce and the grounds for divorce. The Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife, if he finds ‘something objectionable about her’ (Deuteronomy 24: 1). It never said a woman could divorce her husband.
A man could simply ‘write a certificate of dismissal’, without going through any formal legal proceedings. ‘Something objectionable’ could cover a multitude, from adultery to an eccentric hair-do on a bad hair day. Indeed, by the time of Christ, divorce was allowed for the most trivial of reasons, and was so common that many women suffered.
There are other places in the New Testament where Christ, and Saint Paul and Saint Peter, accept that a man may divorce an unfaithful wife. Saint Mark alone mentions the possibility of women also divorcing. This may have been normal in non-Jewish contexts, but cases of Jewish women initiating divorce are rare.
Christ devotes much of his teaching time interpreting scripture in a way that gives priority to human wellbeing. For example, the Sabbath is made for us rather than we being made for the Sabbath. Similarly, we could say he is saying here that the order of marriage is made for us, not that we are made for the ordering of marriage, or worrying about the minutiae in the details religious people construct around marriage.
The way Christ interprets scriptural law ought to provide a clue to how we interpret his teaching.
Today, many of us may appear to be on the side of the Pharisees on the question of divorce. Divorce is common today and most of us accept it as a reality. Our laws and our customs, like those of the Pharisees in the Gospel accounts, assume divorce happens.
Christ appears to be harsh and uncompromising on a first reading this morning. But many marriages get stale or toxic, relationships can dry up or lose focus, self-destruct, or break down. Things go wrong for far too many reasons.
A divorce may be a burial for a dead marriage. Divorces do not kill marriages any more than funerals kill people … although one of the great tragedies today is that far too many couples are burying their relationship when it is only sick or injured.
Is it not possible that the promise to be together until death can refer to the death of the relationship as well as the death of the person?
Is it not possible to recall that the original intent of our loving and caring God who gave us the gift of marriage was to make our lives better?
Does that desire of God evaporate when we are no longer in a marriage?
In other Gospel passages, when Jesus is asked about divorce and remarriage, people are trying to set a trap for him. But marriage is not a trap and not a matter of expediency in which the wife is the property of the husband.
Of course, the covenant of marriage is still just as valid today. Ideally, when two people marry, they commit themselves to an exclusive relationship of love and devotion in a new entity. But it is easier to say thar than it is to face up to reality, which includes the complexities of child-rearing, careers and competing religious, social and economic claims and responsibilities.
Ideally, we are not to live alone, but in loving and committed relationships. Indeed, in an ideal world, there would be no such thing as divorce. But we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a fallen and broken world in which human nature always falls short of the glory of God. Whether we like it or not, divorce is a reality and we have to live with that.
Sadly, when people go through a divorce, the church is often the last place they can turn to for help and understanding.
But divorce is like a death. It is the death of a relationship, and so people grieve, and they need sympathy and to be consoled. Would we dare chastise someone who was grieving after the death of a family member?
I was reminded once by a divorced priest in the Church of Ireland that when God says: ‘I hate divorce ... I hate divorce’ (Malachi 2: 16), that of course God hates divorce because God has gone through the sufferings and grieving of divorce through our faithlessness and wandering.
God hates divorce because God has suffered divorce.
It was a profound insight.
Too often, in debates, passages of Scripture taken out of context, or one-sided interpretations of the tradition of the Church can be used to set a trap so that people are forced to accept only one standard or practice for marriage in the world today. Let us not use this reading to trap Jesus through hardness of heart. And let us not use this reading to trap vulnerable, suffering and grieving people who remain open to loving and being loved.
We must face questions about marriage and divorce, about who can be married and who can be divorced, as challenges that ask us to think outside the box, without trying to trap Jesus or to trap those who are faced with honest questions about marriage and about divorce.
‘If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away’ (Matthew 5: 29) … posters for an exhibition seen in Vienna (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Friday 13 June 2025):
‘Pentecost’ is the theme this week (8-14 June) 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 by Dr Paulo Ueti, Theological Advisor and Regional Manager for the Americas and the Caribbean, USPG.
The USPG prayer diary today (Friday 13 June 2025) invites us to pray:
Spirit of God, in the same way as you did at Pentecost, humble us to open your word up to all who may want to hear it, making us faithful ambassadors of Christ.
The Collect:
O Lord, from whom all good things come:
grant to us your humble servants,
that by your holy inspiration
we may think those things that are good,
and by your merciful guiding may perform the same;
through our Lord Jesus Christ,
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post Communion Prayer:
Gracious God, lover of all,
in this sacrament
we are one family in Christ your Son,
one in the sharing of his body and blood
and one in the communion of his Spirit:
help us to grow in love for one another
and come to the full maturity of the Body of Christ.
We make our prayer through your Son our Saviour.
Yesterday’s Reflection
Continued Tomorrow
‘Gracious God, lover of all, in this sacrament … help us to grow in love for one another’ (the Post Communion Prayer) … Communion vessels in the Harvard Chapel in Southwark Cathedral (Photograph Patrick Comerford, 2023)
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