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
We are in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar, and this week began with the First Sunday after Trinity (Trinity I, 7 June 2026). 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, Co Carlow, in the late evening … what happens when love fades in a marriage? (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflections:
In the Gospel reading at the Eucharist today (Matthew 5: 27-32), we return to our readings from the Sermon on the Mount. At first, the statements on adultery, divorce and remarriage in this reading 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 12 June 2026):
In Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), the theme this week, from 7 to 13 June 2026 (pp 8-9), is ‘Safe Churches in Zambia’. This theme was introduced on Sunday with a programme update from Fran Mate, Senior Regional Manager for Africa, USPG.
The USPG prayer diary today (Friday 12 June 2026, World Day Against Child Labour) invites us to pray:
God of justice, we pray especially for children who are exploited, harmed or made vulnerable. Guide your Church worldwide to be courageous in protecting children and creating truly safe spaces for all.
The Collect:
O God,
the strength of all those who put their trust in you,
mercifully accept our prayers
and, because through the weakness of our mortal nature
we can do no good thing without you,
grant us the help of your grace,
that in the keeping of your commandments
we may please you both in will and deed;
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:
Eternal Father,
we thank you for nourishing us
with these heavenly gifts:
may our communion strengthen us in faith,
build us up in hope,
and make us grow in love;
for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
God of truth,
help us to keep your law of love
and to walk in ways of wisdom,
that we may find true life
in Jesus Christ your Son.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
‘Eternal Father … may our communion strengthen us in faith, build us up in hope, and make us grow in love; for the sake of Jesus Christ our Lord’ (the Post Communion Prayer) … Communion vessels in the Harvard Chapel in Southwark Cathedral (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
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marriage. Show all posts
03 June 2026
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2026:
27, Wednesday 3 June 2026
The Seven Brothers Taverna at a corner in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon in Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
Since the 50-day season of Easter came to an end with the Day of Pentecost or Whit Sunday (24 May 2026), we have returned to Ordinary Time once again. This week began with Trinity Sunday (31 May 2026), and tomorrow is the Feast of Corpus Christi (4 June 2026). But the liturgical colour today remains the Green of Ordinary Time, and today the calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship recalls the Martyrs of Uganda (1885-1887, 1977).
Later today (3 June 2026), I hope to take part in the choir rehearsals in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford. But, 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.
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Mark 12: 18-27 (NRSVA):
18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.’
24 Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? 27 He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.’
The old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, with the Seven Brothers Taverna to the left (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s reflections:
The Gospel reading at the Eucharist in the lectionary today (Mark 12: 18-27) offers an opportunity to reflect both on how we treat the marginalised today and how we how we imagine heavenly life.
This account is set in the Temple in Jerusalem in Holy Week, on the day after Christ has overturned the tables of the moneychangers. There, as were read yesterday (Mark 12: 13-17), Christ is challenged by both the Pharisees and the Herodians, the people who supported Herod, the Roman puppet king, when they put to him was one of great questions at the time: should religious and pious Jews pay taxes to Rome?
Next, along come the Sadducees, who said there is no resurrection, but come with contorted questions about the afterlife.
When I read this passage, I also think of an old Hollywood musical, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), starring Jane Powell and Howard Keel, of the many superstitions about the seventh son of a seventh son, and even about a restaurant I know in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon in Crete called ‘The Seven Brothers’ (Τα Επτά Αδέρφια).
But this reading about seven brothers and one bride is primarily a story about questions about the resurrection (for parallel readings see also Matthew 22: 23-33; Luke 20: 27-40).
After his arrival in Jerusalem, Christ is in the Temple each day, teaching kingdom values. But his teaching is ignored by those who see him as a threat to their power and their privilege, by those who want to get rid of him at any cost … without realising that their choice, their actions, are part of the climax that ushers in Christ’s reign.
As an example of his kingdom values, his rejection of the either-or options, the black-or-white, the take-it-or-leave-it values of the world, Christ refuses to enter the debate about paying Temple taxes with imperial Roman coins (Mark 12: 13-17).
So another trap is set – this time by the Sadducees, the Temple priests. They held that only the first five books of the Bible, the Torah or the Pentateuch, were authoritative. They had very traditional views of the Law and rejected what they saw as the novel idea of life after death. They saw it as a dangerous innovation, an importation from the Babylonian exile, a Persian idea adapted by the Pharisees. The more traditional view accepted that people were rewarded or punished by God in this life.
So, seeking to trap Jesus into speaking against the Law, they pose this puzzle about a woman who ends up marrying seven brothers, each of whom dies in turn. In the new life, whose wife will she be?
The apostles later have a similar encounter with the Sadducees when they are preaching the Resurrection (see also Acts 4: 1-4), as does the Apostle Paul when he faces the council (Acts 23: 6-10).
This question about ‘levirate’ marriage is not about the marriage of Levites, but comes from the Latin word levir, meaning a brother-in-law. There was a sense in which a man was seen to live on in his son. So, if a man died without sons and heirs, his brother was required to marry his widow and give her a son, thus continuing the family line (see Deuteronomy 25: 5-10; see also Genesis 38: 8).
Saint Mark makes the same point that human relations in the home do not exist in the same way beyond death. Christ distinguishes two ages and kinds of existence. Mortals are part of this age by the very fact of our physical birth, and of the age to come by resurrection (see also Romans 1: 4).
Christ argues for life after death, and for the resurrection, from the Pentateuch, the very five books to which the Sadducees limited their understanding of what is Scripture. In the story of the Burning Bush, God tells Moses: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (verse 26; see Exodus 3: 6). Because God says he is (not was), Abraham is alive now. He died, so he must have been brought back to life, resurrected. God is truly ‘God … of the living’ (verse 27). God is not frustrated by physical death.
What happens afterwards?
According to Saint Luke’s version, some scribes, who are believers in resurrection, are pleased with Jesus’ argument. The Sadducees ‘no longer dared to ask him [Christ] another question’. Christ has evaded the trap that was set for him. What does this say about how we should deal with those who question and challenge the Christian faith?
This reading also poses some pastoral questions for the practice of pastoral ministry in parish life. In all the discussion, no-one refers to the right of the woman to her own integrity, her own inherent or intrinsic value, her own right to eternal life with equality in the eyes of God.
The woman who was married off to seven brothers never made herself the victim, never chose her own misfortune. She is an object, a chattel, perhaps merely a trafficked sex slave, in the eyes of the interlocutors. But for Christ, she is to be seen as a child of God.
In those days it was never a woman’s choice to be a widow or, for that matter, to be divorced. At the time, women could often only acquiesce to what their husbands wanted to do.
What response to this reading might we expect from people in a parish who are widowed or divorced, or in difficult or broken marriages, or people who have never married?
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon on Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Wednesday 3 June 2026):
A new edition of Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), was published last week, in time for the USPG conference in the High Leigh, Hertfordshire, which opened yesterday (2 June) and continues until tomorrow (4 June). The theme this week, from 31 May to 6 June 2026 (pp 6-7), is ‘Peacebuilding in the Gulf’. This theme was introduced on Sunday with a reflection from Saint Christopher’s Cathedral in Bahrain.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Wednesday 3 June 2026) invites us to pray:
God of hope, sustain Anglican churches across the Gulf, from the UAE to Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar and elsewhere, as they navigate daily anxieties and dangers. May the rhythms of prayer, the hope found in Scripture, and fellowship with one another anchor them in your presence.
The Collect of the Day:
Almighty and everlasting God,
you have given us your servants grace,
by the confession of a true faith,
to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity
and in the power of the divine majesty to worship the Unity:
keep us steadfast in this faith,
that we may evermore be defended from all adversities;
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:
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.
Additional Collect:
Holy God,
faithful and unchanging:
enlarge our minds with the knowledge of your truth,
and draw us more deeply into the mystery of your love,
that we may truly worship you,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Collect on the Eve of Corpus Christi:
Lord Jesus Christ,
we thank you that in this wonderful sacrament
you have given us the memorial of your passion:
grant us so to reverence the sacred mysteries
of your body and blood
that we may know within ourselves
and show forth in our lives
the fruits of your redemption;
for you are alive and reign with the Father
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
The sign at the Seven Brothers family taverna at the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon (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
Since the 50-day season of Easter came to an end with the Day of Pentecost or Whit Sunday (24 May 2026), we have returned to Ordinary Time once again. This week began with Trinity Sunday (31 May 2026), and tomorrow is the Feast of Corpus Christi (4 June 2026). But the liturgical colour today remains the Green of Ordinary Time, and today the calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship recalls the Martyrs of Uganda (1885-1887, 1977).
Later today (3 June 2026), I hope to take part in the choir rehearsals in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford. But, 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.
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Mark 12: 18-27 (NRSVA):
18 Some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him and asked him a question, saying, 19 ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no child, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 There were seven brothers; the first married and, when he died, left no children; 21 and the second married her and died, leaving no children; and the third likewise; 22 none of the seven left children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection whose wife will she be? For the seven had married her.’
24 Jesus said to them, ‘Is not this the reason you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the story about the bush, how God said to him, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? 27 He is God not of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.’
The old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, with the Seven Brothers Taverna to the left (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s reflections:
The Gospel reading at the Eucharist in the lectionary today (Mark 12: 18-27) offers an opportunity to reflect both on how we treat the marginalised today and how we how we imagine heavenly life.
This account is set in the Temple in Jerusalem in Holy Week, on the day after Christ has overturned the tables of the moneychangers. There, as were read yesterday (Mark 12: 13-17), Christ is challenged by both the Pharisees and the Herodians, the people who supported Herod, the Roman puppet king, when they put to him was one of great questions at the time: should religious and pious Jews pay taxes to Rome?
Next, along come the Sadducees, who said there is no resurrection, but come with contorted questions about the afterlife.
When I read this passage, I also think of an old Hollywood musical, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), starring Jane Powell and Howard Keel, of the many superstitions about the seventh son of a seventh son, and even about a restaurant I know in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon in Crete called ‘The Seven Brothers’ (Τα Επτά Αδέρφια).
But this reading about seven brothers and one bride is primarily a story about questions about the resurrection (for parallel readings see also Matthew 22: 23-33; Luke 20: 27-40).
After his arrival in Jerusalem, Christ is in the Temple each day, teaching kingdom values. But his teaching is ignored by those who see him as a threat to their power and their privilege, by those who want to get rid of him at any cost … without realising that their choice, their actions, are part of the climax that ushers in Christ’s reign.
As an example of his kingdom values, his rejection of the either-or options, the black-or-white, the take-it-or-leave-it values of the world, Christ refuses to enter the debate about paying Temple taxes with imperial Roman coins (Mark 12: 13-17).
So another trap is set – this time by the Sadducees, the Temple priests. They held that only the first five books of the Bible, the Torah or the Pentateuch, were authoritative. They had very traditional views of the Law and rejected what they saw as the novel idea of life after death. They saw it as a dangerous innovation, an importation from the Babylonian exile, a Persian idea adapted by the Pharisees. The more traditional view accepted that people were rewarded or punished by God in this life.
So, seeking to trap Jesus into speaking against the Law, they pose this puzzle about a woman who ends up marrying seven brothers, each of whom dies in turn. In the new life, whose wife will she be?
The apostles later have a similar encounter with the Sadducees when they are preaching the Resurrection (see also Acts 4: 1-4), as does the Apostle Paul when he faces the council (Acts 23: 6-10).
This question about ‘levirate’ marriage is not about the marriage of Levites, but comes from the Latin word levir, meaning a brother-in-law. There was a sense in which a man was seen to live on in his son. So, if a man died without sons and heirs, his brother was required to marry his widow and give her a son, thus continuing the family line (see Deuteronomy 25: 5-10; see also Genesis 38: 8).
Saint Mark makes the same point that human relations in the home do not exist in the same way beyond death. Christ distinguishes two ages and kinds of existence. Mortals are part of this age by the very fact of our physical birth, and of the age to come by resurrection (see also Romans 1: 4).
Christ argues for life after death, and for the resurrection, from the Pentateuch, the very five books to which the Sadducees limited their understanding of what is Scripture. In the story of the Burning Bush, God tells Moses: ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’ (verse 26; see Exodus 3: 6). Because God says he is (not was), Abraham is alive now. He died, so he must have been brought back to life, resurrected. God is truly ‘God … of the living’ (verse 27). God is not frustrated by physical death.
What happens afterwards?
According to Saint Luke’s version, some scribes, who are believers in resurrection, are pleased with Jesus’ argument. The Sadducees ‘no longer dared to ask him [Christ] another question’. Christ has evaded the trap that was set for him. What does this say about how we should deal with those who question and challenge the Christian faith?
This reading also poses some pastoral questions for the practice of pastoral ministry in parish life. In all the discussion, no-one refers to the right of the woman to her own integrity, her own inherent or intrinsic value, her own right to eternal life with equality in the eyes of God.
The woman who was married off to seven brothers never made herself the victim, never chose her own misfortune. She is an object, a chattel, perhaps merely a trafficked sex slave, in the eyes of the interlocutors. But for Christ, she is to be seen as a child of God.
In those days it was never a woman’s choice to be a widow or, for that matter, to be divorced. At the time, women could often only acquiesce to what their husbands wanted to do.
What response to this reading might we expect from people in a parish who are widowed or divorced, or in difficult or broken marriages, or people who have never married?
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon on Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Wednesday 3 June 2026):
A new edition of Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), was published last week, in time for the USPG conference in the High Leigh, Hertfordshire, which opened yesterday (2 June) and continues until tomorrow (4 June). The theme this week, from 31 May to 6 June 2026 (pp 6-7), is ‘Peacebuilding in the Gulf’. This theme was introduced on Sunday with a reflection from Saint Christopher’s Cathedral in Bahrain.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Wednesday 3 June 2026) invites us to pray:
God of hope, sustain Anglican churches across the Gulf, from the UAE to Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar and elsewhere, as they navigate daily anxieties and dangers. May the rhythms of prayer, the hope found in Scripture, and fellowship with one another anchor them in your presence.
The Collect of the Day:
Almighty and everlasting God,
you have given us your servants grace,
by the confession of a true faith,
to acknowledge the glory of the eternal Trinity
and in the power of the divine majesty to worship the Unity:
keep us steadfast in this faith,
that we may evermore be defended from all adversities;
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:
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.
Additional Collect:
Holy God,
faithful and unchanging:
enlarge our minds with the knowledge of your truth,
and draw us more deeply into the mystery of your love,
that we may truly worship you,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Collect on the Eve of Corpus Christi:
Lord Jesus Christ,
we thank you that in this wonderful sacrament
you have given us the memorial of your passion:
grant us so to reverence the sacred mysteries
of your body and blood
that we may know within ourselves
and show forth in our lives
the fruits of your redemption;
for you are alive and reign with the Father
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
The sign at the Seven Brothers family taverna at the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon (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
15 May 2026
When Sir William Wolseley
married the widowed
Ann Whitby in 1752, who
was the real bigamist?
Wolseley Hall was destroyed in a serious fire in the early 1950s and was demolished in 1966
Patrick Comerford
Accusations of bigamy, adultery, infidelity and seduction in rural Staffordshire in the mid-18th century were at the heart of a complex legal battle over 270 years ago. The case and the appeal were drawn out between 1752 and 1754, and the stories that unfolded involved accusations of greed, manipulation, cheating, forgery, desertion, perjury, bigamy, adultery, bribery, drugged drinks and corrupt and dishonest clergy.
I came across these stories once again during a number of visits to Staffordshire in recent weeks, including visits to Wolseley, Rugeley, Stafford, Lichfield and Tamworth. These stories centre on the widowed Ann Whitbey (1724-1782), who went through some sort of a marriage ceremony with the widowed Sir William Wolseley (1692-1779) of Wolseley Hall, in 1752. Ann was then 28, a widowed mother with two young children; Sir William was 60, more than twice her age, and the recently widowed father of three sons and a daughter, then aged from one up to 12.
But were they ever truly married? And if there was bigamy, who was the guilty partner?
Sir William Wolseley was the fifth baronet of Wolseley, and the son of Captain Richard Wolseley, who established the Irish branch of the family at Mount Wolseley. When his uncles, the third and fourth baronets, Sir William Wolseley and Sir Henry Wolseley, died in quick succession in 1728 and 1730, he unexpectedly succeeded to the family title as the fifth baronet of Wolseley and inherited Wolseley Hall in 1730. A younger brother, Sir Richard Wolseley (1696-1769), inherited the family’s Irish estates at Mount Wolseley, Co Carlow, and became a baronet in his own right in 1744.
The High House, Stafford … John Robbins was MP for Stafford in 1747-1754 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
Sir William Wolseley married his first wife, Ann Fieldhouse (1706-1752) from Rugeley, in 1738, when she was 31 and he was 46, and they were the parents of four children, three sons and a daughter:
1, Sir William Wolseley (1740-1817), who became the sixth baronet.
2, Admiral Charles Wolseley (1741-1808).
3, Sophia Wolseley (1749-1801), who married William Piggott (1743-1802).
4, James Wolseley (1751-1773).
Ann (Fieldhouse) Wolseley died of smallpox in January in 1752, and nine months later the widowed Sir William married the widowed Anne Whitby, daughter of William Northey, on 23 September 1752.
But soon a complex case of separation from bed and board was being played out in the ‘Bawdy Court’ of the Diocese of Lichfield, and then in the Court of Arches appeal court. The case and the reputations of all involved became major points of gossip in the coffee houses of London and in the parlours of country houses in Staffordshire.
Sir William Wolseley’s case against Ann Whitby or Ann Robins was heard in 1753 before Richard Smalbroke (1716-1805), who was Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry for 64 years. Sir William stated that his wife, Dame Ann Wolseley, had committed adultery with John Robins, MP for Stafford, and he alleged fraud involving the falsification of the parish register in the Castle Church, Stafford.
Wolseley alleged that John Robins and Ann Whitby were married bigamously on 9 October 1752, but claimed that marriage was falsely recorded by the Revd William Corne, the curate of Castle Church, and that had been changed in the register variously to 9 June 1752 and then to 16 June.
These dates are pivotal to grasping the intricacies of the case. The records indicate that William and Ann were married on 23 September 1752; if she married Robins in October, her marriage to Robins was null and void and bigamous; however, if she married Robins in June her marriage to Wolseley was bigamous and null and void.
If William wanted to access Ann’s inherited wealth, an annulment would not suit him. In their marriage contract, Ann agreed to pay him £300 a year and undertook to make no claims on the Wolseley estate should she survive him. A separation based on adultery could lead to further claims on her fortune, while an annulment would not, because in the eyes of the law the marriage would never have taken place.
Ann Whitby’s father, William Northey (1690-1738), was MP for Calne in 1713 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Ann Whitby was the daughter of William Northey (1690-1738) and his wife Abigail (Webster). He was MP for Calne in 1713 and for Wootton Bassett in 1714. He had inherited large property near Chippenham in Wiltshire and bought the Compton Basset estate near Calne. He accused his wife Abigail of adultery and claimed her son Thomas was not his but was in fact the son of Edward Thomas. Indeed, when William Northey died, Abigail married the same Edward Thomas. William Northey left only £1,000 in his will for Thomas, and so his daughter Ann inherited most of his wealth as a result of her mother’s alleged adultery.
Some writers suggest this acrimonious atmosphere of infidelity and adultery influenced Ann in her formative years. Ann was considered to be beautiful and when she married John Whitby of Whitby Wood (1716-1750) in 1743 she was 19. They were the parents of two sons: the Revd Thomas Whitby (1746-1828) of Creswell Hall, High Sherrif of Staffordshire, who is buried at Saint Mary’s Church, Stafford; and William Whitby (1748-1792).
John Whitby died in 1751 and within a month of his death the widowed Ann had started an affair with John Robins (1714-1754), MP for Stafford (1747-1754). She soon became pregnant again, but soon suspected the 38-year-old MP had ‘abandoned’ her. Ann then looked to the 60-year-old widower Sir William Wolseley to save her name and reputation. However, after her marriage to Wolseley, Robins returned and Ann left Wolseley to live with the much younger Robins.
George Winfield, a Lichfield publican, tried to serve a decree from William on Ann at Robins’s house in Stafford on 11 October 1753. He ‘searched diligently’ for her, but having waited an hour he pinned the decree to the door and left.
The case for Sir William and for Ann were handled by their lawyers: John Howard and Edward Burslem Sudell respectively.
William sought separation or divorce from bed and board and mutual cohabitation on the grounds of adultery. He graphically described her alleged adulterous behaviour, claiming Ann, ‘unmindful of their conjugate vows did in violation thereof behave herself in a very lascivious, incontinent and adulterous manner and did contract a criminal correspondence and intimacy with John Robins Esq and without any lawful cause quitted the conversation with her said husband Sir William Wolseley and in or about the month of October, went to live with said John Robins at his house in Stafford in an adulterous manner and went by the name of Robins and as the pretended wife of John Robins.’
He went on to say that in Robins’s house they had ‘frequently lain naked in one and the same bed together and have at such times had carnal use and knowledge of each other’s bodies and have committed the foul crime of adultery’. The court heard that two body impressions were found on the bed and that Ann had been frequently ‘lighted’ up to Robins’s bedchamber by servants and that Robins had later ‘followed on’.
William maintained that from June to September 1752, he had proposed marriage to Ann and that they had agreed to marry each other. Meanwhile, Robins asserted that he had proposed marriage to her between April 1751 and May 1752.
William presented a copy of the parish register with their marriage on 23 September 1752 at Colwich Church. The wedding was conducted by the Revd John Clements, Vicar of Colwich, and the witnesses included his nephew, Lieutenant Richard Wolseley, later Sir Richard Wolseley (1729-1781), the second baronet, of Mount Wolseley, Co Carlow.
Sudell, Ann’s lawyer, told the court that on 16 June 1752 John Robins and Ann Whitby were married in the Castle Church, Stafford, by the Revd William Corne. He presented an extract of the register, but this was a copy and not the original, and was not evidence that the date 9 June had been scratched out and replaced with 16 June.
Mount Wolseley, Co Carlow … Sir William Wolseley’s nephew, Sir Richard Wolseley, was a key witness in the case (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Throughout the case, Wolseley’s lawyer John Howard referred to Ann as ‘Ann Robins, falsely called Dame Ann Wolseley’, and he called Lieutenant Richard Wolseley as a witness. He said he was present at the marriage in Colwich Church on 22 September 1752, although the parish register indicates they were married on 23 September.
He described the domesticity of the Wolseley household, how he dined with William and Ann on 26 September, when she took her place ‘at the head end of the table’, and how he saw William and Ann walking together in the garden.
The judgment in Lichfield favoured Sir William. But Ann appealed and her case was heard by Sir George Lee in the Arches Court of Canterbury and began on 5 April 1754. The new evidence before the court involved the importance of the dates of the alleged marriages of Ann and John Robins, the alleged drugging of Ann and the pressure on her to sign a marriage agreement with Sir William.
Ann pleaded that she and Robins were married by the Revd William Corne on 16 June 1752. Corne, however, appears to have a crisis of conscience, and he later admitted to several witnesses and in a signed affidavit, that he acted illegally but with the best intentions.
The evidence suggested that Ann was pregnant by Robins and the date of the actual marriage was 9 October 1752, seven days after she married William. Robins begged Corne to enter the date of 9 June to save her ‘dignity’ – a reference to her pregnancy before marriage.
Corne was told that it was well known that Robins was with Lord Uxbridge on 9 June and could not have married Ann that day. Robins then told Corne to change the date from the 9 June to 16 June, and in what appears to have been bribery or inducement gave Corne £1,000.
In court, Sir Brooke Boothby (1710-1789), a Derbyshire landholder, alleged Corne asked him to see if Sir William would forgive him if he told him the whole truth. Boothby’s family once owned the Moat House, the former Comberford family home in Tamworth, and his son, also Sir Brooke Boothby (1744-1824), was a member of the intellectual and literary circle in Lichfield.
John Dunn claimed to have seen a change in the register to 16 June when he knew the marriage was on 9 October. Phoebe Booth, who also knew Corne, said that she had heard him say he had ‘grievously injured’ William. Richard Derry, Ann’s servant, claimed Ann and John Robins were married on 9 October and that he gave Ann away.
Corne confessed to fraudulently altering the parish records and inserting an incorrect date for the marriage. Although he said he falsified dates for the sake of Ann’s dignity, he admitted receiving £1,000. This would make him a party to a bigamous marriage, as he must have known that Ann had married William 17 days earlier.
There were allegations that Ann had been drugged or forced to drink too much at a dinner on 26 August 1752 in the vicarage of the Revd John Clements who had married Ann and William. The next day they signed a contract to marry, and the implication was that Clements and his wife were involved in some subterfuge along with William.
The Wolseley Arms, by the River Trent, near Rugeley in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
The judge, Sir George Lee, initially rejected suggestions from Ann’s legal team that Corne’s affidavit should be ignored because of his fraudulent actions, that he was guilty of a clandestine marriage, that he had excommunicated himself and that he was not a reliable witness. In fact, Corne had died 19 months before the appeal, on 22 November 1753, and could not be questioned on his affidavit. In Lee’s opinion, no credible witness supported Sir William’s cause. He dismissed as unreliable allegations that Corne had married Ann and Robins on 9 October, as Corne had previously perjured himself.
To complicate all these matters, the parish register where the alleged altered marriage dates for Ann Whitby and John Robins were entered, shows no sign of any significant and meaningful alteration.
The final judgment was that William’s marriage to Ann was invalid because she was already married to Robins at the time. Lee also ruled that Ann should pay no costs, and so these probably fell on Sir William.
Robins absconded to France for fear of being charged with perjury, and died shortly after on 17 December 1754. Ann also absconded, but never faced charges of perjury or bigamy and held on to her fortune. When Robins died she married her third – or fourth – husband, Christopher Hargrave, a chancery solicitor. Sir William Woseley was never charged with bigamy, never married again and died on 12 March 1779.
A scandalous book, The Widow of the Woods (1755), published after the appeal, was written by a one-time associate of Sir William, Benjamin Victor. The Wolseley family tried to buy up as many copies of the book they could and burned them, but is still available online.
Further reading:
Alan Wiggins, The Bawdy Courts of Lichfield, ‘Sir William Wolseley 5th Baronet v Whitby or Robins or Wolseley – Trying to divorce somebody you might not actually be married to!’ (19 June 2019)
Sir Brooke Boothby (1710-1789) gave evidence in the case … his family lived in the Moat House, the former Comberford family home in Tamworth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
Patrick Comerford
Accusations of bigamy, adultery, infidelity and seduction in rural Staffordshire in the mid-18th century were at the heart of a complex legal battle over 270 years ago. The case and the appeal were drawn out between 1752 and 1754, and the stories that unfolded involved accusations of greed, manipulation, cheating, forgery, desertion, perjury, bigamy, adultery, bribery, drugged drinks and corrupt and dishonest clergy.
I came across these stories once again during a number of visits to Staffordshire in recent weeks, including visits to Wolseley, Rugeley, Stafford, Lichfield and Tamworth. These stories centre on the widowed Ann Whitbey (1724-1782), who went through some sort of a marriage ceremony with the widowed Sir William Wolseley (1692-1779) of Wolseley Hall, in 1752. Ann was then 28, a widowed mother with two young children; Sir William was 60, more than twice her age, and the recently widowed father of three sons and a daughter, then aged from one up to 12.
But were they ever truly married? And if there was bigamy, who was the guilty partner?
Sir William Wolseley was the fifth baronet of Wolseley, and the son of Captain Richard Wolseley, who established the Irish branch of the family at Mount Wolseley. When his uncles, the third and fourth baronets, Sir William Wolseley and Sir Henry Wolseley, died in quick succession in 1728 and 1730, he unexpectedly succeeded to the family title as the fifth baronet of Wolseley and inherited Wolseley Hall in 1730. A younger brother, Sir Richard Wolseley (1696-1769), inherited the family’s Irish estates at Mount Wolseley, Co Carlow, and became a baronet in his own right in 1744.
The High House, Stafford … John Robbins was MP for Stafford in 1747-1754 (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
Sir William Wolseley married his first wife, Ann Fieldhouse (1706-1752) from Rugeley, in 1738, when she was 31 and he was 46, and they were the parents of four children, three sons and a daughter:
1, Sir William Wolseley (1740-1817), who became the sixth baronet.
2, Admiral Charles Wolseley (1741-1808).
3, Sophia Wolseley (1749-1801), who married William Piggott (1743-1802).
4, James Wolseley (1751-1773).
Ann (Fieldhouse) Wolseley died of smallpox in January in 1752, and nine months later the widowed Sir William married the widowed Anne Whitby, daughter of William Northey, on 23 September 1752.
But soon a complex case of separation from bed and board was being played out in the ‘Bawdy Court’ of the Diocese of Lichfield, and then in the Court of Arches appeal court. The case and the reputations of all involved became major points of gossip in the coffee houses of London and in the parlours of country houses in Staffordshire.
Sir William Wolseley’s case against Ann Whitby or Ann Robins was heard in 1753 before Richard Smalbroke (1716-1805), who was Chancellor of the Diocese of Lichfield and Coventry for 64 years. Sir William stated that his wife, Dame Ann Wolseley, had committed adultery with John Robins, MP for Stafford, and he alleged fraud involving the falsification of the parish register in the Castle Church, Stafford.
Wolseley alleged that John Robins and Ann Whitby were married bigamously on 9 October 1752, but claimed that marriage was falsely recorded by the Revd William Corne, the curate of Castle Church, and that had been changed in the register variously to 9 June 1752 and then to 16 June.
These dates are pivotal to grasping the intricacies of the case. The records indicate that William and Ann were married on 23 September 1752; if she married Robins in October, her marriage to Robins was null and void and bigamous; however, if she married Robins in June her marriage to Wolseley was bigamous and null and void.
If William wanted to access Ann’s inherited wealth, an annulment would not suit him. In their marriage contract, Ann agreed to pay him £300 a year and undertook to make no claims on the Wolseley estate should she survive him. A separation based on adultery could lead to further claims on her fortune, while an annulment would not, because in the eyes of the law the marriage would never have taken place.
Ann Whitby was the daughter of William Northey (1690-1738) and his wife Abigail (Webster). He was MP for Calne in 1713 and for Wootton Bassett in 1714. He had inherited large property near Chippenham in Wiltshire and bought the Compton Basset estate near Calne. He accused his wife Abigail of adultery and claimed her son Thomas was not his but was in fact the son of Edward Thomas. Indeed, when William Northey died, Abigail married the same Edward Thomas. William Northey left only £1,000 in his will for Thomas, and so his daughter Ann inherited most of his wealth as a result of her mother’s alleged adultery.
Some writers suggest this acrimonious atmosphere of infidelity and adultery influenced Ann in her formative years. Ann was considered to be beautiful and when she married John Whitby of Whitby Wood (1716-1750) in 1743 she was 19. They were the parents of two sons: the Revd Thomas Whitby (1746-1828) of Creswell Hall, High Sherrif of Staffordshire, who is buried at Saint Mary’s Church, Stafford; and William Whitby (1748-1792).
John Whitby died in 1751 and within a month of his death the widowed Ann had started an affair with John Robins (1714-1754), MP for Stafford (1747-1754). She soon became pregnant again, but soon suspected the 38-year-old MP had ‘abandoned’ her. Ann then looked to the 60-year-old widower Sir William Wolseley to save her name and reputation. However, after her marriage to Wolseley, Robins returned and Ann left Wolseley to live with the much younger Robins.
George Winfield, a Lichfield publican, tried to serve a decree from William on Ann at Robins’s house in Stafford on 11 October 1753. He ‘searched diligently’ for her, but having waited an hour he pinned the decree to the door and left.
The case for Sir William and for Ann were handled by their lawyers: John Howard and Edward Burslem Sudell respectively.
William sought separation or divorce from bed and board and mutual cohabitation on the grounds of adultery. He graphically described her alleged adulterous behaviour, claiming Ann, ‘unmindful of their conjugate vows did in violation thereof behave herself in a very lascivious, incontinent and adulterous manner and did contract a criminal correspondence and intimacy with John Robins Esq and without any lawful cause quitted the conversation with her said husband Sir William Wolseley and in or about the month of October, went to live with said John Robins at his house in Stafford in an adulterous manner and went by the name of Robins and as the pretended wife of John Robins.’
He went on to say that in Robins’s house they had ‘frequently lain naked in one and the same bed together and have at such times had carnal use and knowledge of each other’s bodies and have committed the foul crime of adultery’. The court heard that two body impressions were found on the bed and that Ann had been frequently ‘lighted’ up to Robins’s bedchamber by servants and that Robins had later ‘followed on’.
William maintained that from June to September 1752, he had proposed marriage to Ann and that they had agreed to marry each other. Meanwhile, Robins asserted that he had proposed marriage to her between April 1751 and May 1752.
William presented a copy of the parish register with their marriage on 23 September 1752 at Colwich Church. The wedding was conducted by the Revd John Clements, Vicar of Colwich, and the witnesses included his nephew, Lieutenant Richard Wolseley, later Sir Richard Wolseley (1729-1781), the second baronet, of Mount Wolseley, Co Carlow.
Sudell, Ann’s lawyer, told the court that on 16 June 1752 John Robins and Ann Whitby were married in the Castle Church, Stafford, by the Revd William Corne. He presented an extract of the register, but this was a copy and not the original, and was not evidence that the date 9 June had been scratched out and replaced with 16 June.
Mount Wolseley, Co Carlow … Sir William Wolseley’s nephew, Sir Richard Wolseley, was a key witness in the case (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Throughout the case, Wolseley’s lawyer John Howard referred to Ann as ‘Ann Robins, falsely called Dame Ann Wolseley’, and he called Lieutenant Richard Wolseley as a witness. He said he was present at the marriage in Colwich Church on 22 September 1752, although the parish register indicates they were married on 23 September.
He described the domesticity of the Wolseley household, how he dined with William and Ann on 26 September, when she took her place ‘at the head end of the table’, and how he saw William and Ann walking together in the garden.
The judgment in Lichfield favoured Sir William. But Ann appealed and her case was heard by Sir George Lee in the Arches Court of Canterbury and began on 5 April 1754. The new evidence before the court involved the importance of the dates of the alleged marriages of Ann and John Robins, the alleged drugging of Ann and the pressure on her to sign a marriage agreement with Sir William.
Ann pleaded that she and Robins were married by the Revd William Corne on 16 June 1752. Corne, however, appears to have a crisis of conscience, and he later admitted to several witnesses and in a signed affidavit, that he acted illegally but with the best intentions.
The evidence suggested that Ann was pregnant by Robins and the date of the actual marriage was 9 October 1752, seven days after she married William. Robins begged Corne to enter the date of 9 June to save her ‘dignity’ – a reference to her pregnancy before marriage.
Corne was told that it was well known that Robins was with Lord Uxbridge on 9 June and could not have married Ann that day. Robins then told Corne to change the date from the 9 June to 16 June, and in what appears to have been bribery or inducement gave Corne £1,000.
In court, Sir Brooke Boothby (1710-1789), a Derbyshire landholder, alleged Corne asked him to see if Sir William would forgive him if he told him the whole truth. Boothby’s family once owned the Moat House, the former Comberford family home in Tamworth, and his son, also Sir Brooke Boothby (1744-1824), was a member of the intellectual and literary circle in Lichfield.
John Dunn claimed to have seen a change in the register to 16 June when he knew the marriage was on 9 October. Phoebe Booth, who also knew Corne, said that she had heard him say he had ‘grievously injured’ William. Richard Derry, Ann’s servant, claimed Ann and John Robins were married on 9 October and that he gave Ann away.
Corne confessed to fraudulently altering the parish records and inserting an incorrect date for the marriage. Although he said he falsified dates for the sake of Ann’s dignity, he admitted receiving £1,000. This would make him a party to a bigamous marriage, as he must have known that Ann had married William 17 days earlier.
There were allegations that Ann had been drugged or forced to drink too much at a dinner on 26 August 1752 in the vicarage of the Revd John Clements who had married Ann and William. The next day they signed a contract to marry, and the implication was that Clements and his wife were involved in some subterfuge along with William.
The Wolseley Arms, by the River Trent, near Rugeley in Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
The judge, Sir George Lee, initially rejected suggestions from Ann’s legal team that Corne’s affidavit should be ignored because of his fraudulent actions, that he was guilty of a clandestine marriage, that he had excommunicated himself and that he was not a reliable witness. In fact, Corne had died 19 months before the appeal, on 22 November 1753, and could not be questioned on his affidavit. In Lee’s opinion, no credible witness supported Sir William’s cause. He dismissed as unreliable allegations that Corne had married Ann and Robins on 9 October, as Corne had previously perjured himself.
To complicate all these matters, the parish register where the alleged altered marriage dates for Ann Whitby and John Robins were entered, shows no sign of any significant and meaningful alteration.
The final judgment was that William’s marriage to Ann was invalid because she was already married to Robins at the time. Lee also ruled that Ann should pay no costs, and so these probably fell on Sir William.
Robins absconded to France for fear of being charged with perjury, and died shortly after on 17 December 1754. Ann also absconded, but never faced charges of perjury or bigamy and held on to her fortune. When Robins died she married her third – or fourth – husband, Christopher Hargrave, a chancery solicitor. Sir William Woseley was never charged with bigamy, never married again and died on 12 March 1779.
A scandalous book, The Widow of the Woods (1755), published after the appeal, was written by a one-time associate of Sir William, Benjamin Victor. The Wolseley family tried to buy up as many copies of the book they could and burned them, but is still available online.
Further reading:
Alan Wiggins, The Bawdy Courts of Lichfield, ‘Sir William Wolseley 5th Baronet v Whitby or Robins or Wolseley – Trying to divorce somebody you might not actually be married to!’ (19 June 2019)
Sir Brooke Boothby (1710-1789) gave evidence in the case … his family lived in the Moat House, the former Comberford family home in Tamworth (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2026)
22 November 2025
Daily prayer in the Kingdom Season:
22, Saturday 22 November 2025
The Seven Brothers Taverna at a corner in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon in Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
We are in the Kingdom Season, the time between All Saints’ Day and Advent, and tomorrow is the Sunday next before Advent and the Feast of Christ the King. The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today (22 November) today remembers Saint Cecilia, Martyr at Rome ca 230.
Later this evening, I may go to Saturday night Vespers in the Greek Orthodox Church in Stony Stratford, followed by a talk on the Divine Liturgy. But, before the day begins, I am taking some quiet time early this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, 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.
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Luke 20: 27-40 (NRSVA):
27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 28 and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’
34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’ 39 Then some of the scribes answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well.’ 40 For they no longer dared to ask him another question.
The old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, with the Seven Brothers Taverna to the left (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s reflections:
The Gospel reading at the Eucharist in the lectionary today (Luke 20: 27-40),offers an opportunity to reflect both on how we treat the marginalised today and how we how we imagine heavenly life.
This reading which is similar to the Gospel reading we hear on Remembrance Sunday (9 November 2025, Luke 20: 27-38), comes close to the end of November, a month in which we have been remembering the dead, including All Saints’ Day (1 November), All Souls’ Day (2 November), Remembrance Sunday (9 November) and Remembrance Day (11 November).
When I read this passage, I also think of an old Hollywood musical, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), starring Jane Powell and Howard Keel, of the many Irish superstitions about the seventh son of a seventh son, and even about a restaurant I know in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon in Crete called ‘The Seven Brothers’ (Τα Επτά Αδέρφια).
But this reading about seven brothers and one bride is primarily a story about questions about the resurrection (for parallel readings see also Matthew 22: 23-33; Mark 12: 18-27). How does this relate to tomorrow’s celebration of Christ the King or to the approaching themes of Advent?
After his arrival in Jerusalem, Christ is in the Temple each day, teaching kingdom values (Luke 19: 47). But his teaching is ignored by those who see him as a threat to their power and their privilege, by those who want to get rid of him at any cost (Luke 19: 47-48; 20: 20) … without realising that their choice, their actions, are part of the climax that ushers in Christ’s reign.
As an example of his kingdom values, his rejection of the either-or options, the black-or-white, the take-it-or-leave-it values of the world, Christ refuses to enter the debate about paying Temple taxes with imperial Roman coins (Luke 20: 21-25).
So another trap is set – this time by the Sadducees, the Temple priests. They held that only the first five books of the Bible, the Torah or the Pentateuch, were authoritative. They had very traditional views of the Law and rejected what they saw as the novel idea of life after death. They saw it as a dangerous innovation, an importation from the Babylonian exile, a Persian idea adapted by the Pharisees. The more traditional view accepted that people were rewarded or punished by God in this life.
So, seeking to trap Jesus into speaking against the Law, they pose this puzzle about a woman who ends up marrying seven brothers, each of whom dies in turn. In the new life, whose wife will she be?
The apostles later have a similar encounter with the Sadducees when they are preaching the Resurrection (see Acts 4: 1-4), as does the Apostle Paul when he faces the council (Acts 23: 6-10).
This question about ‘levirate’ marriage is not about the marriage of Levites, but comes from the Latin word levir, meaning a brother-in-law. There was a sense in which a man was seen to live on in his son. So, if a man died without sons and heirs, his brother was required to marry his widow and give her a son, thus continuing the family line (see Deuteronomy 25: 5-10; Genesis 38: 8).
Saint Luke makes the same point that human relations in the home do not exist in the same way beyond death. Christ distinguishes two ages and kinds of existence. Mortals are part of this age by the very fact of our physical birth, and of the age to come by resurrection (verse 36; see Romans 1: 4).
‘This age’ (verse 34) is the current era; ‘that age’ (verses 35-36) is the era to come, when Christ returns. In God’s kingdom, marriage will no longer exist. Those who are admitted into eternal life for their faith (‘considered worthy of a place …’, verse 35) will all be ‘children of God’ (verse 36). This will be the new family relationship. They will be immortal (‘cannot die anymore’) and will be like ‘angels.’
Christ argues for life after death, and for the resurrection, from the Pentateuch, the very five books to which the Sadducees limited their understanding of what is Scripture. In the story of the Burning Bush, God tells Moses: ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham …’ (see Exodus 3: 6). Because God says he is (not was), Abraham is alive now. He died, so he must have been brought back to life, resurrected. God is truly ‘God … of the living’ (verse 38). God is not frustrated by physical death (verse 38).
What happens afterwards?
Some scribes, who are believers in resurrection, are pleased with Jesus’ argument (verse 39). The Sadducees ‘no longer dared to ask him [Christ] another question’ (verse 40). Christ has evaded the trap that was set for him. What does this say about how we should deal with those who question and challenge the Christian faith?
This reading also poses some pastoral questions for the practice of pastoral ministry in parish life, What response to this reading do we expect from people in a parish who are widowed or divorced, or in difficult or broken marriages, or people who have never married?
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon on Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Saturday 22 November 2025):
The theme this week (16 to 22 November) in Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), has been ‘In the Shadow of the Carneddau’ (pp 56-57). This theme was introduced last Sunday with Reflections from Bishop Andrew John, who stepped down as Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Bangor on 27 June.
The USPG Prayer Diary today invites us to pray:
Pray for a strengthened vision within the Church that we are not powerless and able to do more than we could ask or imagine.
The Collect:
Heavenly Father,
whose blessed Son was revealed
to destroy the works of the devil
and to make us the children of God and heirs of eternal life:
grant that we, having this hope,
may purify ourselves even as he is pure;
that when he shall appear in power and great glory
we may be made like him in his eternal and glorious kingdom;
where he is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Post Communion Prayer:
Gracious Lord,
in this holy sacrament
you give substance to our hope:
bring us at the last
to that fullness of life for which we long;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Additional Collect:
Heavenly Lord,
you long for the world’s salvation:
stir us from apathy,
restrain us from excess
and revive in us new hope
that all creation will one day be healed
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Collect on the Eve of Christ the King:
Eternal Father,
whose Son Jesus Christ ascended to the throne of heaven
that he might rule over all things as Lord and King:
keep the Church in the unity of the Spirit
and in the bond of peace,
and bring the whole created order to worship at his feet;
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Saint Cecilia (centre) with Saint Barbara and Saint Agnes in a window by JW Knowles (1891) in Saint Olave’s Church, York … Saint Cecilia is celebrated today (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025) (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
Today is Saint Cecilia’s Day (22 November) … over the years, I have been elected a Fellow of both the Fraternity of Saint Cecilia and the Academy of Saint Cecilia
Patrick Comerford
We are in the Kingdom Season, the time between All Saints’ Day and Advent, and tomorrow is the Sunday next before Advent and the Feast of Christ the King. The calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today (22 November) today remembers Saint Cecilia, Martyr at Rome ca 230.
Later this evening, I may go to Saturday night Vespers in the Greek Orthodox Church in Stony Stratford, followed by a talk on the Divine Liturgy. But, before the day begins, I am taking some quiet time early this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, 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.
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Luke 20: 27-40 (NRSVA):
27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 28 and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’
34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’ 39 Then some of the scribes answered, ‘Teacher, you have spoken well.’ 40 For they no longer dared to ask him another question.
The old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon, with the Seven Brothers Taverna to the left (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s reflections:
The Gospel reading at the Eucharist in the lectionary today (Luke 20: 27-40),offers an opportunity to reflect both on how we treat the marginalised today and how we how we imagine heavenly life.
This reading which is similar to the Gospel reading we hear on Remembrance Sunday (9 November 2025, Luke 20: 27-38), comes close to the end of November, a month in which we have been remembering the dead, including All Saints’ Day (1 November), All Souls’ Day (2 November), Remembrance Sunday (9 November) and Remembrance Day (11 November).
When I read this passage, I also think of an old Hollywood musical, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), starring Jane Powell and Howard Keel, of the many Irish superstitions about the seventh son of a seventh son, and even about a restaurant I know in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon in Crete called ‘The Seven Brothers’ (Τα Επτά Αδέρφια).
But this reading about seven brothers and one bride is primarily a story about questions about the resurrection (for parallel readings see also Matthew 22: 23-33; Mark 12: 18-27). How does this relate to tomorrow’s celebration of Christ the King or to the approaching themes of Advent?
After his arrival in Jerusalem, Christ is in the Temple each day, teaching kingdom values (Luke 19: 47). But his teaching is ignored by those who see him as a threat to their power and their privilege, by those who want to get rid of him at any cost (Luke 19: 47-48; 20: 20) … without realising that their choice, their actions, are part of the climax that ushers in Christ’s reign.
As an example of his kingdom values, his rejection of the either-or options, the black-or-white, the take-it-or-leave-it values of the world, Christ refuses to enter the debate about paying Temple taxes with imperial Roman coins (Luke 20: 21-25).
So another trap is set – this time by the Sadducees, the Temple priests. They held that only the first five books of the Bible, the Torah or the Pentateuch, were authoritative. They had very traditional views of the Law and rejected what they saw as the novel idea of life after death. They saw it as a dangerous innovation, an importation from the Babylonian exile, a Persian idea adapted by the Pharisees. The more traditional view accepted that people were rewarded or punished by God in this life.
So, seeking to trap Jesus into speaking against the Law, they pose this puzzle about a woman who ends up marrying seven brothers, each of whom dies in turn. In the new life, whose wife will she be?
The apostles later have a similar encounter with the Sadducees when they are preaching the Resurrection (see Acts 4: 1-4), as does the Apostle Paul when he faces the council (Acts 23: 6-10).
This question about ‘levirate’ marriage is not about the marriage of Levites, but comes from the Latin word levir, meaning a brother-in-law. There was a sense in which a man was seen to live on in his son. So, if a man died without sons and heirs, his brother was required to marry his widow and give her a son, thus continuing the family line (see Deuteronomy 25: 5-10; Genesis 38: 8).
Saint Luke makes the same point that human relations in the home do not exist in the same way beyond death. Christ distinguishes two ages and kinds of existence. Mortals are part of this age by the very fact of our physical birth, and of the age to come by resurrection (verse 36; see Romans 1: 4).
‘This age’ (verse 34) is the current era; ‘that age’ (verses 35-36) is the era to come, when Christ returns. In God’s kingdom, marriage will no longer exist. Those who are admitted into eternal life for their faith (‘considered worthy of a place …’, verse 35) will all be ‘children of God’ (verse 36). This will be the new family relationship. They will be immortal (‘cannot die anymore’) and will be like ‘angels.’
Christ argues for life after death, and for the resurrection, from the Pentateuch, the very five books to which the Sadducees limited their understanding of what is Scripture. In the story of the Burning Bush, God tells Moses: ‘I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham …’ (see Exodus 3: 6). Because God says he is (not was), Abraham is alive now. He died, so he must have been brought back to life, resurrected. God is truly ‘God … of the living’ (verse 38). God is not frustrated by physical death (verse 38).
What happens afterwards?
Some scribes, who are believers in resurrection, are pleased with Jesus’ argument (verse 39). The Sadducees ‘no longer dared to ask him [Christ] another question’ (verse 40). Christ has evaded the trap that was set for him. What does this say about how we should deal with those who question and challenge the Christian faith?
This reading also poses some pastoral questions for the practice of pastoral ministry in parish life, What response to this reading do we expect from people in a parish who are widowed or divorced, or in difficult or broken marriages, or people who have never married?
A sign at the Seven Brothers Taverna in the old Venetian harbour in Rethymnon on Crete (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Saturday 22 November 2025):
The theme this week (16 to 22 November) in Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), has been ‘In the Shadow of the Carneddau’ (pp 56-57). This theme was introduced last Sunday with Reflections from Bishop Andrew John, who stepped down as Archbishop of Wales and Bishop of Bangor on 27 June.
The USPG Prayer Diary today invites us to pray:
Pray for a strengthened vision within the Church that we are not powerless and able to do more than we could ask or imagine.
The Collect:
Heavenly Father,
whose blessed Son was revealed
to destroy the works of the devil
and to make us the children of God and heirs of eternal life:
grant that we, having this hope,
may purify ourselves even as he is pure;
that when he shall appear in power and great glory
we may be made like him in his eternal and glorious kingdom;
where he is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Post Communion Prayer:
Gracious Lord,
in this holy sacrament
you give substance to our hope:
bring us at the last
to that fullness of life for which we long;
through Jesus Christ our Saviour.
Additional Collect:
Heavenly Lord,
you long for the world’s salvation:
stir us from apathy,
restrain us from excess
and revive in us new hope
that all creation will one day be healed
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Collect on the Eve of Christ the King:
Eternal Father,
whose Son Jesus Christ ascended to the throne of heaven
that he might rule over all things as Lord and King:
keep the Church in the unity of the Spirit
and in the bond of peace,
and bring the whole created order to worship at his feet;
who is alive and reigns with you,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Saint Cecilia (centre) with Saint Barbara and Saint Agnes in a window by JW Knowles (1891) in Saint Olave’s Church, York … Saint Cecilia is celebrated today (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025) (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
Today is Saint Cecilia’s Day (22 November) … over the years, I have been elected a Fellow of both the Fraternity of Saint Cecilia and the Academy of Saint Cecilia
09 November 2025
Daily prayer in the Kingdom Season:
9, Sunday 9 November 2025,
III before Advent, Remembrance Sunday
‘Now there were seven brothers’ (Luke 20: 29) … the Seven Brothers Taverna at the Harbour in Rethymnon (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
We are in the Kingdom Season, the time between All Saints and Advent. In the Calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today is the Third Sunday before Advent and Remembrance Sunday.
Later this morning, I hope to sing with the choir at the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford, and in the afternoon I plan to attend the Remembrance Sunday commemorations at the War Memorial on Horsefair Green.
Meanwhile, before today begins, before having breakfast, I am taking some quiet time early this morning to give thanks, and for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:
1, 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 war memorial in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
Luke 20: 27-38 (NRSVA):
27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 28 and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’
34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’
‘Now there were seven brothers’ (Luke 20: 29) … the Seven Brothers Tavern at the Harbour in Rethymnon (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflections
When I was younger, much younger, I remember leafing through the pages of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of Ireland during what I must have then thought were boring sermons.
Did you ever do that?
What did you come across?
Some things were undoubtedly more boring than any sermon, such as the list of sermons in the ‘Second Book of Homilies,’ listed in Article 35 of the 39 Articles.
But perhaps the most unusual thing I remember finding in the ‘old’ Book of Common Prayer was the ‘Table of Kindred and Affinity.’
It seeks to list ‘whosoever are related are forbidden by the Church … to marry together.’
The table – which is not there any more – ruled, for example, that a man may not marry his mother, his sister, his daughter, or numerous other relatives, and neither may a woman marry her uncle, nephew, grandparent or grandchild. That all makes common sense.
But it goes into obsessive detail with some surprising prohibitions. For example, a man may not marry his wife’s father’s mother or his daughter’s son’s wife.
I can still recall how my mind boggled at the thought of the need for such rules. What was life like back in the 16th century if the Church felt it needed to specify such prohibitions? And how many women had the opportunity even to contemplate marrying their deceased granddaughter’s husband?
At least six of the 25 relationships that are expressly prohibited from developing into marriage involve no genetic link at all. Yet the list did not prohibit marriages between first cousins. So some of the inconsistencies are striking, to say the least.
Some of the rules make sense: when extended families were the norm, and often lived under the same roof, these rules warned against exploitative relationships within family circles. They helped to prevent secret affairs that might have continued in the hope of their eventual ratification with marriage. And they clearly delineated family structures in ways that were important when it came to inheriting land and property and keeping them within the family.
But it could all have been, and was, dealt with anyway, through legislation and law.
What was something like that doing in a prayer book, in the Book of Common Prayer, in the first place?
I think it had less to do with morality and more to do with the Church needing to bolster long-held prejudices by cloaking them in statements that were good in part but in sum amounted to bad law and bad theology.
When the men who drew up this table in the Church, and the men who handed it down to Anglicans unquestioned for centuries, were getting their minds around some very peculiar relationships, did any one of them ever think about asking a woman, ‘What do you think about these obscure and arcane rules and regulations?’
Is the Church not doing the very same today, with the way it tries to rule about who can and who cannot get married in church today?
As the Church distances itself from marriages that are actually allowed in law today, who among senior decision-makers actually takes the time to ask the women and men who are refused Church marriages, ‘Would you like to be married in Church?’
For example, when Lyra McKee was murdered in Derry in 2019 Church leaders were right to rush to condemn her brutal murder. It was so fitting that she received a dignified funeral in a Church of Ireland cathedral, Saint Anne’s Cathedral, Belfast, later that month. But had the bishops and priests who condemned her murder and were supportive of her funeral instead offered her the marriage she had looked forward to, they would have been severely disciplined by Church authorities.
And, as they were disciplined, I imagine, no-one would have asked Lyra McKee what she wanted, what she needed, what she had hoped for.
I think her plight would have been similar to the plight of the woman who is at the centre of the debate in this morning’s Gospel reading (Luke 20: 27-38).
Her plight was probably not plucked from thin air, not concocted in the narrow imaginations of the Sadducees, the prominent group of ruling priests in the Temple, who use her dilemma to try to paint Jesus into a corner.
They are not interested in her plight.
They are not interested in her dilemma.
They are not interested in the fact that a widow in that society who fails to remarry is left without financial means of support, is left in poverty, may even be forced into prostitution.
Who ever asked this woman what she would like?
Who ever asked her how she would like to end up in this life … never mind in the next life?
And just as they had no real interest in life after death for this widow, they had no interest in life before death for her.
If they had, they would have asked her how she felt not about eternal life but about her life in the here and now … how did she feel after the death of her husband and her husbands … how did she feel about being traded as a commodity to protect men’s property interests … how did they die … did they die in war …?
On Remembrance Sunday each year, I wonder how many men bothered to ask my grandmother how she felt when her husband, my grandfather, returned from Thessaloniki in the middle of World War I, suffering from malaria, malaria that would eventually take him to an early grave.
She was so distressed that the age she gave for him on his gravestone is 49 … not the age he was when he died in 1921 (which was 53), but the age he was in 1916, when he returned from the war in Greece.
Perhaps, in this very sad mistake, she was saying the war had killed her husband.
She lived as widow for another 27 years, bringing up six children, two stepchildren and the four children of her marriage. Who ever asked her what she felt about life-before-death, never mind life-after-death?
If we fail to listen to the plight of the victims of war, then war creeps up on us suddenly. And then we ask: ‘Why did no-one tell us.’
World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That promise was betrayed, for my grandmother, for all the men who are named on the war memorials in our churches, for their widows, mothers, sisters, daughters, for all who loved them, for all who continue to love them and to cherish their memories.
Wars continue to be waged in Ukraine and Russia … in Israel, Gaza and Palestine … in Sudan … in central Africa …in the caves and mountains of Afghanistan.
And when the war widows and refugees arrive in Britain or Ireland, they must wonder, in some places, whether we truly believe that love is at the heart of the Christian way of life.
The Sadducees in this morning’s reading do not believe in the afterlife anyway, so any answer Jesus gives is going to be ridiculed.
This woman, unnamed, is made an object by the people who come to Jesus with their silly questions. But none among them is truly concerned about her plight.
Her only role is to meet the obscure obligations set out in the arcane interpretations of the marriage code that make her an object. She has no name, no home; her only function is to serve the needs of men, to continue the family name and line, so that the family lands and wealth are not estranged.
But instead of dealing with trifling arguments that do not matter, Jesus avoids the debate and tells us three very straight truths:
• God is alive and loving.
• We are God’s children.
• Love is at the heart of true relationships.
Of course, we do not yet live in the fullness of God’s kingdom. People still marry, people still vote and run in elections, people still invest and spend money. When we do those things, they have most value when they reflect the values of God’s kingdom.
When they do not reflect kingdom values, they become debased and lose value, significance and meaning. It is easy to understand that in terms of the political, social and economic difficulties we face. It is more difficult to say that in terms of relationships and marriages.
How we inhabit the political and economic structures of this age can become a sign of our dwelling in God’s kingdom … if we live with those structures so that we give priority, not to our own self-interest and gain, but to the concerns and needs of the poor, the outcast and the marginalised.
If we live our committed relationships in this life with integrity and honesty and self-sacrifice, they can become signs of how we live our risen lives in the age to come.
And in the great working out of God’s great eternal plans, these are the three eternal truths that matter most:
• God is alive and loving.
• We are God’s children.
• Love is at the heart of meaningful relationships, with God and with others.
‘Now there were seven brothers’ (Luke 20: 29) … the Seven Brothers Taverna at the Harbour in Rethymnon (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Sunday 9 November 2025, III Sunday before Advent, Remembrance Sunday):
The theme this week (9 to 15 November) in Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘Hope for the Future’ (pp 54-55). This theme is introduced today with Reflections from Laura D’Henin-Ivers, Chief Executive Officer at Hope for the Future:
Read and meditate on Psalm 24.
On 10 November, COP30 begins in Brazil, marking a crucial moment in our collective journey to care for God’s creation. Climate change threatens the most vulnerable, from communities facing rising seas to farmers enduring droughts. As Christians, we are called to pray and act, advocating for justice and sustainability.
Faith calls us to action – just as prophets spoke against injustice, so must we raise our voices for the earth. Stewardship is a sacred trust. Through advocacy, sustainable living, and hope, we embody our love for God and neighbour.
At Hope for the Future, we believe in collaboration with decisionmakers for bold climate action. Faith communities hold a unique role, as trusted institutions, vital parts of local and national societal fabric, and moral guides. When we speak up for climate justice, we amplify our message, making it harder for leaders to ignore. Rooted in shared values, faith-driven advocacy builds meaningful change.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Sunday 9 November 2025, III Sunday before Advent, Remembrance Sunday) invites us to pray by reflecting on these words: ‘For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth’ (Job 19: 25).
The prayer diary yesterday invited us to pray: Lord of Peace, we pray for your peace to fill the world, healing divisions and bringing unity. May Christians everywhere commit to being prayerful, reflecting your love and sharing your peace with others.
A wilted poppy in the mud in a field in Comberford, Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
The Collect of the Day:
Almighty Father,
whose will is to restore all things
in your beloved Son, the King of all:
govern the hearts and minds of those in authority,
and bring the families of the nations,
divided and torn apart by the ravages of sin,
to be subject to his just and gentle rule;
who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
God of peace,
whose Son Jesus Christ proclaimed the kingdom
and restored the broken to wholeness of life:
look with compassion on the anguish of the world,
and by your healing power
make whole both people and nations;
through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Additional Collect:
God, our refuge and strength,
bring near the day when wars shall cease
and poverty and pain shall end,
that earth may know the peace of heaven
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Peeparations in Stony Stratford and Old Stratford for Remembrance Sunday (Photographs: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
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
We are in the Kingdom Season, the time between All Saints and Advent. In the Calendar of the Church of England in Common Worship today is the Third Sunday before Advent and Remembrance Sunday.
Later this morning, I hope to sing with the choir at the Parish Eucharist in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford, and in the afternoon I plan to attend the Remembrance Sunday commemorations at the War Memorial on Horsefair Green.
Meanwhile, before today begins, before having breakfast, I am taking some quiet time early this morning to give thanks, and for reflection, prayer and reading in these ways:
1, 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 war memorial in Saint Mary and Saint Giles Church, Stony Stratford (Photograph: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
Luke 20: 27-38 (NRSVA):
27 Some Sadducees, those who say there is no resurrection, came to him 28 and asked him a question, ‘Teacher, Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies, leaving a wife but no children, the man shall marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 29 Now there were seven brothers; the first married, and died childless; 30 then the second 31 and the third married her, and so in the same way all seven died childless. 32 Finally the woman also died. 33 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife will the woman be? For the seven had married her.’
34 Jesus said to them, ‘Those who belong to this age marry and are given in marriage; 35 but those who are considered worthy of a place in that age and in the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. 36 Indeed they cannot die any more, because they are like angels and are children of God, being children of the resurrection. 37 And the fact that the dead are raised Moses himself showed, in the story about the bush, where he speaks of the Lord as the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 Now he is God not of the dead, but of the living; for to him all of them are alive.’
‘Now there were seven brothers’ (Luke 20: 29) … the Seven Brothers Tavern at the Harbour in Rethymnon (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflections
When I was younger, much younger, I remember leafing through the pages of the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of Ireland during what I must have then thought were boring sermons.
Did you ever do that?
What did you come across?
Some things were undoubtedly more boring than any sermon, such as the list of sermons in the ‘Second Book of Homilies,’ listed in Article 35 of the 39 Articles.
But perhaps the most unusual thing I remember finding in the ‘old’ Book of Common Prayer was the ‘Table of Kindred and Affinity.’
It seeks to list ‘whosoever are related are forbidden by the Church … to marry together.’
The table – which is not there any more – ruled, for example, that a man may not marry his mother, his sister, his daughter, or numerous other relatives, and neither may a woman marry her uncle, nephew, grandparent or grandchild. That all makes common sense.
But it goes into obsessive detail with some surprising prohibitions. For example, a man may not marry his wife’s father’s mother or his daughter’s son’s wife.
I can still recall how my mind boggled at the thought of the need for such rules. What was life like back in the 16th century if the Church felt it needed to specify such prohibitions? And how many women had the opportunity even to contemplate marrying their deceased granddaughter’s husband?
At least six of the 25 relationships that are expressly prohibited from developing into marriage involve no genetic link at all. Yet the list did not prohibit marriages between first cousins. So some of the inconsistencies are striking, to say the least.
Some of the rules make sense: when extended families were the norm, and often lived under the same roof, these rules warned against exploitative relationships within family circles. They helped to prevent secret affairs that might have continued in the hope of their eventual ratification with marriage. And they clearly delineated family structures in ways that were important when it came to inheriting land and property and keeping them within the family.
But it could all have been, and was, dealt with anyway, through legislation and law.
What was something like that doing in a prayer book, in the Book of Common Prayer, in the first place?
I think it had less to do with morality and more to do with the Church needing to bolster long-held prejudices by cloaking them in statements that were good in part but in sum amounted to bad law and bad theology.
When the men who drew up this table in the Church, and the men who handed it down to Anglicans unquestioned for centuries, were getting their minds around some very peculiar relationships, did any one of them ever think about asking a woman, ‘What do you think about these obscure and arcane rules and regulations?’
Is the Church not doing the very same today, with the way it tries to rule about who can and who cannot get married in church today?
As the Church distances itself from marriages that are actually allowed in law today, who among senior decision-makers actually takes the time to ask the women and men who are refused Church marriages, ‘Would you like to be married in Church?’
For example, when Lyra McKee was murdered in Derry in 2019 Church leaders were right to rush to condemn her brutal murder. It was so fitting that she received a dignified funeral in a Church of Ireland cathedral, Saint Anne’s Cathedral, Belfast, later that month. But had the bishops and priests who condemned her murder and were supportive of her funeral instead offered her the marriage she had looked forward to, they would have been severely disciplined by Church authorities.
And, as they were disciplined, I imagine, no-one would have asked Lyra McKee what she wanted, what she needed, what she had hoped for.
I think her plight would have been similar to the plight of the woman who is at the centre of the debate in this morning’s Gospel reading (Luke 20: 27-38).
Her plight was probably not plucked from thin air, not concocted in the narrow imaginations of the Sadducees, the prominent group of ruling priests in the Temple, who use her dilemma to try to paint Jesus into a corner.
They are not interested in her plight.
They are not interested in her dilemma.
They are not interested in the fact that a widow in that society who fails to remarry is left without financial means of support, is left in poverty, may even be forced into prostitution.
Who ever asked this woman what she would like?
Who ever asked her how she would like to end up in this life … never mind in the next life?
And just as they had no real interest in life after death for this widow, they had no interest in life before death for her.
If they had, they would have asked her how she felt not about eternal life but about her life in the here and now … how did she feel after the death of her husband and her husbands … how did she feel about being traded as a commodity to protect men’s property interests … how did they die … did they die in war …?
On Remembrance Sunday each year, I wonder how many men bothered to ask my grandmother how she felt when her husband, my grandfather, returned from Thessaloniki in the middle of World War I, suffering from malaria, malaria that would eventually take him to an early grave.
She was so distressed that the age she gave for him on his gravestone is 49 … not the age he was when he died in 1921 (which was 53), but the age he was in 1916, when he returned from the war in Greece.
Perhaps, in this very sad mistake, she was saying the war had killed her husband.
She lived as widow for another 27 years, bringing up six children, two stepchildren and the four children of her marriage. Who ever asked her what she felt about life-before-death, never mind life-after-death?
If we fail to listen to the plight of the victims of war, then war creeps up on us suddenly. And then we ask: ‘Why did no-one tell us.’
World War I was supposed to be the war to end all wars. That promise was betrayed, for my grandmother, for all the men who are named on the war memorials in our churches, for their widows, mothers, sisters, daughters, for all who loved them, for all who continue to love them and to cherish their memories.
Wars continue to be waged in Ukraine and Russia … in Israel, Gaza and Palestine … in Sudan … in central Africa …in the caves and mountains of Afghanistan.
And when the war widows and refugees arrive in Britain or Ireland, they must wonder, in some places, whether we truly believe that love is at the heart of the Christian way of life.
The Sadducees in this morning’s reading do not believe in the afterlife anyway, so any answer Jesus gives is going to be ridiculed.
This woman, unnamed, is made an object by the people who come to Jesus with their silly questions. But none among them is truly concerned about her plight.
Her only role is to meet the obscure obligations set out in the arcane interpretations of the marriage code that make her an object. She has no name, no home; her only function is to serve the needs of men, to continue the family name and line, so that the family lands and wealth are not estranged.
But instead of dealing with trifling arguments that do not matter, Jesus avoids the debate and tells us three very straight truths:
• God is alive and loving.
• We are God’s children.
• Love is at the heart of true relationships.
Of course, we do not yet live in the fullness of God’s kingdom. People still marry, people still vote and run in elections, people still invest and spend money. When we do those things, they have most value when they reflect the values of God’s kingdom.
When they do not reflect kingdom values, they become debased and lose value, significance and meaning. It is easy to understand that in terms of the political, social and economic difficulties we face. It is more difficult to say that in terms of relationships and marriages.
How we inhabit the political and economic structures of this age can become a sign of our dwelling in God’s kingdom … if we live with those structures so that we give priority, not to our own self-interest and gain, but to the concerns and needs of the poor, the outcast and the marginalised.
If we live our committed relationships in this life with integrity and honesty and self-sacrifice, they can become signs of how we live our risen lives in the age to come.
And in the great working out of God’s great eternal plans, these are the three eternal truths that matter most:
• God is alive and loving.
• We are God’s children.
• Love is at the heart of meaningful relationships, with God and with others.
‘Now there were seven brothers’ (Luke 20: 29) … the Seven Brothers Taverna at the Harbour in Rethymnon (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Sunday 9 November 2025, III Sunday before Advent, Remembrance Sunday):
The theme this week (9 to 15 November) in Pray with the World Church, the prayer diary of the Anglican mission agency USPG (United Society Partners in the Gospel), is ‘Hope for the Future’ (pp 54-55). This theme is introduced today with Reflections from Laura D’Henin-Ivers, Chief Executive Officer at Hope for the Future:
Read and meditate on Psalm 24.
On 10 November, COP30 begins in Brazil, marking a crucial moment in our collective journey to care for God’s creation. Climate change threatens the most vulnerable, from communities facing rising seas to farmers enduring droughts. As Christians, we are called to pray and act, advocating for justice and sustainability.
Faith calls us to action – just as prophets spoke against injustice, so must we raise our voices for the earth. Stewardship is a sacred trust. Through advocacy, sustainable living, and hope, we embody our love for God and neighbour.
At Hope for the Future, we believe in collaboration with decisionmakers for bold climate action. Faith communities hold a unique role, as trusted institutions, vital parts of local and national societal fabric, and moral guides. When we speak up for climate justice, we amplify our message, making it harder for leaders to ignore. Rooted in shared values, faith-driven advocacy builds meaningful change.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Sunday 9 November 2025, III Sunday before Advent, Remembrance Sunday) invites us to pray by reflecting on these words: ‘For I know that my Redeemer lives, and that at the last he will stand upon the earth’ (Job 19: 25).
The prayer diary yesterday invited us to pray: Lord of Peace, we pray for your peace to fill the world, healing divisions and bringing unity. May Christians everywhere commit to being prayerful, reflecting your love and sharing your peace with others.
A wilted poppy in the mud in a field in Comberford, Staffordshire (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
The Collect of the Day:
Almighty Father,
whose will is to restore all things
in your beloved Son, the King of all:
govern the hearts and minds of those in authority,
and bring the families of the nations,
divided and torn apart by the ravages of sin,
to be subject to his just and gentle rule;
who is alive and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
God of peace,
whose Son Jesus Christ proclaimed the kingdom
and restored the broken to wholeness of life:
look with compassion on the anguish of the world,
and by your healing power
make whole both people and nations;
through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Additional Collect:
God, our refuge and strength,
bring near the day when wars shall cease
and poverty and pain shall end,
that earth may know the peace of heaven
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Peeparations in Stony Stratford and Old Stratford for Remembrance Sunday (Photographs: Patrick Comerford, 2025)
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
Labels:
Comberford,
Crete 2025,
Environment,
Greece 2025,
Kingdom Season,
Marriage,
Mission,
Old Stratford,
Prayer,
Remembrance Day,
Rethymnon,
Saint Luke's Gospel,
Stony Stratford,
USPG,
War and peace
28 February 2025
Daily prayer in Ordinary Time 2025:
26, Friday 28 February 2025
A summer wedding in a monastery in Crete … but the Gospel reading may bring us to ask whether a marriage should last longer than love (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Patrick Comerford
We are in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar. This week began with the Second Sunday before Lent (23 February 2025), we have come to the end of a month, March begins tomorrow, and Lent begins next week on Ash Wednesday (5 March 2025).
Before this day begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, 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.
From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’ (Mark 10: 6) … ‘The Arnolfini Wedding’ by Jan van Eyck (1390-1440)
Mark 10: 1-12 (NRSVA):
1 He left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan. And crowds again gathered around him; and, as was his custom, he again taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ 3 He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 4 They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.’ 5 But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” 7 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’
10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’
Wedding flowers strewn on the lawn at Lisnavagh House, Co Carlow, in the late evening … what happens when love fades in a marriage? (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
This morning’s Gospel reading at the Eucharist (Mark 10: 1-12) challenges us to think about the differences between how we see God’s ways and the actual working out of God’s ways. It challenges us to think about the foundations of faith, which are weak if they depend on God meeting our expectations, and are weakened when God does not meet our expectations.
The Gospel reading also challenges old ideas and customs – in the Pharisees’ tradition about divorce. But, instead of accepting yet another tradition, how might we accept what Christ says as a way of challenging custom and tradition, and as a way of being brave enough to come to new conclusions that reflect the priorities of God and the compassion of Christ?
If our family life and domestic situation become desperate, our income dries up, our family breaks up, we find ourselves down in the dumps and marginalised, do we blame God? How is God with us in our woes?
Do we see material success, prosperity, family life and children as rewards from God?
Is faith, like love, not without seeking reward?
Or do we only love – and believe – because there are rewards?
When this Gospel reading occurs as a Sunday reading, many decide to preach on one of the other readings. But if they do this, they leave us in danger of thinking that Christ is too harsh on those who go through a divorce.
I know only too well how people who go through a marriage breakdown and divorce, and who still cling on to going to church, perhaps just by their fingernails, may well ask, ‘Where is the Good News in this reading?’
So, what is happening here? Herod Antipas was the Governor of Galilee. He had divorced his wife Aretus to marry Herodias, the wife of his brother, Herod Philip. This caused such a scandal that when Saint John the Baptist confronted Herod about it – he was beheaded (see Mark 6: 18-19).
If Christ says it is unlawful for a man to divorce his wife, does he end up like John the Baptist?
If he says it is acceptable, does he contradict the teaching of the Torah and leave himself open to the charge of blasphemy?
The Pharisees were divided on the legality of divorce and the grounds for divorce. So, the question is a trap in another way. They say: ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her’ (Mark 10: 4). The Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife, if he finds ‘something objectionable about her’ (Deuteronomy 24: 1).
Mind you, it never said a woman could divorce her husband (see Mark 10: 12).
A man could simply ‘write a certificate of dismissal’ (verse 4), 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.
However, instead of falling into the trap being set for him, Christ asks the Pharisees: ‘What did Moses command you?’ (Mark 10: 3). In other words, what does the law say? He tells them Moses allowed this ‘because of your hardness of heart’ (Mark 10: 5), perhaps hinting at how hard-hearted men were now making women suffer even more.
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.
In this reading, Christ reminds those around him of God’s original intention. Marriage is a covenant relationship in which the two people become one and live in mutual love and affection.
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 this Gospel story, assume divorce happens.
On a first reading this morning, Christ appears to be harsh and uncompromising. 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 tragedies today is that 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?
From the opening of this story, it is clear the Pharisees are not seeking Christ’s wisdom or compassion. Instead, they are trying to trap him. But marriage is not a trap and not a matter of expediency in which the wife is the inalienable property of an abusive or violent husband, or the husband the inalienable possession of a controlling or narcissist wife.
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 that is easier to say 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. 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, as I have experienced.
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 you dare chastise someone who was grieving after the death of a family member?
I was reminded once by a divorced priest and colleague that when God says: ‘I hate divorce ... I hate divorce’ (Malachi 2: 16), that of course God hates divorce because he has gone through the sufferings and grieving of divorce through our faithlessness and wandering.
God hates divorces because God has suffered divorce.
What 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. But in this Gospel reading, Christ responds to those who seek to trap him by refusing to accept to be trapped into accepting their interpretation of Scripture or Tradition.
Instead, he challenges those around them to think for themselves and to think with compassion.
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.
Enjoying a country house wedding (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Friday 28 February 2025):
This week marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 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), is ‘A Grain of Wheat.’ This theme was introduced on Sunday with a Programme Update by the Revd Dr Nevsky Everett, chaplain of the Church of the Resurrection, Bucharest, Romania.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Friday 28 February 2025) invites us to pray:
Heavenly Father, we praise you for the Church of the Resurrection and their faithful service to you and their community. Bless Father Nevsky and the team’s ministry with strength, wisdom, and continued impact as they bring hope and healing to those in need.
The Collect:
Almighty God,
you have created the heavens and the earth
and made us in your own image:
teach us to discern your hand in all your works
and your likeness in all your children;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who with you and the Holy Spirit reigns supreme over all things,
now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
God our creator,
by your gift
the tree of life was set at the heart of the earthly paradise,
and the bread of life at the heart of your Church:
may we who have been nourished at your table on earth
be transformed by the glory of the Saviour’s cross
and enjoy the delights of eternity;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Almighty God,
give us reverence for all creation
and respect for every person,
that we may mirror your likeness
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Cretulescu Church (Biserica Crețulescu) in Bucharest city centre, was built in the Brâncovenesc style … the reflections in the USPG prayer this week are from the Church of the Resurrection, Bucharest (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
We are in Ordinary Time in the Church Calendar. This week began with the Second Sunday before Lent (23 February 2025), we have come to the end of a month, March begins tomorrow, and Lent begins next week on Ash Wednesday (5 March 2025).
Before this day begins, I am taking some quiet time this morning to give thanks, to reflect, to pray and to read in these ways:
1, 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.
From the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female’ (Mark 10: 6) … ‘The Arnolfini Wedding’ by Jan van Eyck (1390-1440)
Mark 10: 1-12 (NRSVA):
1 He left that place and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan. And crowds again gathered around him; and, as was his custom, he again taught them.
2 Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?’ 3 He answered them, ‘What did Moses command you?’ 4 They said, ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.’ 5 But Jesus said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. 6 But from the beginning of creation, “God made them male and female.” 7 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.” So they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’
10 Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 He said to them, ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.’
Wedding flowers strewn on the lawn at Lisnavagh House, Co Carlow, in the late evening … what happens when love fades in a marriage? (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Reflection:
This morning’s Gospel reading at the Eucharist (Mark 10: 1-12) challenges us to think about the differences between how we see God’s ways and the actual working out of God’s ways. It challenges us to think about the foundations of faith, which are weak if they depend on God meeting our expectations, and are weakened when God does not meet our expectations.
The Gospel reading also challenges old ideas and customs – in the Pharisees’ tradition about divorce. But, instead of accepting yet another tradition, how might we accept what Christ says as a way of challenging custom and tradition, and as a way of being brave enough to come to new conclusions that reflect the priorities of God and the compassion of Christ?
If our family life and domestic situation become desperate, our income dries up, our family breaks up, we find ourselves down in the dumps and marginalised, do we blame God? How is God with us in our woes?
Do we see material success, prosperity, family life and children as rewards from God?
Is faith, like love, not without seeking reward?
Or do we only love – and believe – because there are rewards?
When this Gospel reading occurs as a Sunday reading, many decide to preach on one of the other readings. But if they do this, they leave us in danger of thinking that Christ is too harsh on those who go through a divorce.
I know only too well how people who go through a marriage breakdown and divorce, and who still cling on to going to church, perhaps just by their fingernails, may well ask, ‘Where is the Good News in this reading?’
So, what is happening here? Herod Antipas was the Governor of Galilee. He had divorced his wife Aretus to marry Herodias, the wife of his brother, Herod Philip. This caused such a scandal that when Saint John the Baptist confronted Herod about it – he was beheaded (see Mark 6: 18-19).
If Christ says it is unlawful for a man to divorce his wife, does he end up like John the Baptist?
If he says it is acceptable, does he contradict the teaching of the Torah and leave himself open to the charge of blasphemy?
The Pharisees were divided on the legality of divorce and the grounds for divorce. So, the question is a trap in another way. They say: ‘Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her’ (Mark 10: 4). The Law of Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife, if he finds ‘something objectionable about her’ (Deuteronomy 24: 1).
Mind you, it never said a woman could divorce her husband (see Mark 10: 12).
A man could simply ‘write a certificate of dismissal’ (verse 4), 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.
However, instead of falling into the trap being set for him, Christ asks the Pharisees: ‘What did Moses command you?’ (Mark 10: 3). In other words, what does the law say? He tells them Moses allowed this ‘because of your hardness of heart’ (Mark 10: 5), perhaps hinting at how hard-hearted men were now making women suffer even more.
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.
In this reading, Christ reminds those around him of God’s original intention. Marriage is a covenant relationship in which the two people become one and live in mutual love and affection.
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 this Gospel story, assume divorce happens.
On a first reading this morning, Christ appears to be harsh and uncompromising. 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 tragedies today is that 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?
From the opening of this story, it is clear the Pharisees are not seeking Christ’s wisdom or compassion. Instead, they are trying to trap him. But marriage is not a trap and not a matter of expediency in which the wife is the inalienable property of an abusive or violent husband, or the husband the inalienable possession of a controlling or narcissist wife.
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 that is easier to say 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. 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, as I have experienced.
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 you dare chastise someone who was grieving after the death of a family member?
I was reminded once by a divorced priest and colleague that when God says: ‘I hate divorce ... I hate divorce’ (Malachi 2: 16), that of course God hates divorce because he has gone through the sufferings and grieving of divorce through our faithlessness and wandering.
God hates divorces because God has suffered divorce.
What 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. But in this Gospel reading, Christ responds to those who seek to trap him by refusing to accept to be trapped into accepting their interpretation of Scripture or Tradition.
Instead, he challenges those around them to think for themselves and to think with compassion.
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.
Enjoying a country house wedding (Photograph: Patrick Comerford)
Today’s Prayers (Friday 28 February 2025):
This week marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 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), is ‘A Grain of Wheat.’ This theme was introduced on Sunday with a Programme Update by the Revd Dr Nevsky Everett, chaplain of the Church of the Resurrection, Bucharest, Romania.
The USPG Prayer Diary today (Friday 28 February 2025) invites us to pray:
Heavenly Father, we praise you for the Church of the Resurrection and their faithful service to you and their community. Bless Father Nevsky and the team’s ministry with strength, wisdom, and continued impact as they bring hope and healing to those in need.
The Collect:
Almighty God,
you have created the heavens and the earth
and made us in your own image:
teach us to discern your hand in all your works
and your likeness in all your children;
through Jesus Christ your Son our Lord,
who with you and the Holy Spirit reigns supreme over all things,
now and for ever.
The Post-Communion Prayer:
God our creator,
by your gift
the tree of life was set at the heart of the earthly paradise,
and the bread of life at the heart of your Church:
may we who have been nourished at your table on earth
be transformed by the glory of the Saviour’s cross
and enjoy the delights of eternity;
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Additional Collect:
Almighty God,
give us reverence for all creation
and respect for every person,
that we may mirror your likeness
in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Yesterday’s Reflections
Continued Tomorrow
Cretulescu Church (Biserica Crețulescu) in Bucharest city centre, was built in the Brâncovenesc style … the reflections in the USPG prayer this week are from the Church of the Resurrection, Bucharest (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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)










