In Mark 2:23-28, we read:
One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?”
And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”
And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”
It has been charged that here Jesus names the wrong high priest—that it wasn’t Abiathar at the time of the event he refers to.
What should we make of this?
From my book Mark: A Commentary:
25–26. Jesus asks the Pharisees rhetorically whether they have read what King David did when he and his men were hungry. Have the Pharisees read “how he [David] entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him?”
This event is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. At the time “the house of God” was the Tabernacle (aka “the Tent of Meeting”), since the Temple in Jerusalem had not yet been built.
“The bread of the Presence” was a set of loaves that were placed in the Tabernacle and, later, the Temple. The name comes from the fact that the loaves were set before God’s face (Hebrew, paneh), and so together they were the loaves set before the divine face or presence (Hebrew, lekhempaniym). These loaves were set in God’s presence (before his face, in his house); they did not convey God’s presence (transubstantiation being a mystery of the Christian era).
Mark’s statement that this was “when Abiathar was high priest” has attracted much attention, for David did not approach Abiathar in this narrative. 1 Samuel names the priest as Ahimelech, who was Abiathar’s father (1 Sam. 22:20). This has struck many as a mistake on Mark’s part.
It is noteworthy that neither Matthew nor Luke mentions Abiathar (cf. Matt. 12:3–5, Luke 6:3–4). This may provide a clue to the sequence in which the Gospels were written. Most scholars today hold that Mark wrote first, in which case Matthew and Luke eliminated the reference to Abiathar. Others hold that Mark was not the first writer, in which case he introduced the reference. The matter is not decisive as to Gospel sequence, but it could serve as one clue among others.
As to the claim that this is a mistake, there are various solutions. Some will be more attractive than others, depending on your views:
-
- One solution is that this reference simply was not in the original Mark, for the reference is not found in some manuscripts.
- Another is that there was a scribal error, for Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The latter is mentioned eighteen times in the Bible, but Abiathar is mentioned thirty-one times. A copyist may have accidentally recorded the name of the more famous priest.
- A third solution is that, although Mark indicates that this was during Abiathar’s time, he doesn’t say that David approached Abiathar. Since Abiathar is referenced almost twice as frequently, Mark may have mentioned him as a more familiar figure with which to indicate the time period.
- Further, this event certainly was during Abiathar’s time, since he appears at the beginning of the very next chapter, without an appreciable time passing, and seemingly as an adult (see 1 Sam. 22:20–22).
And there are yet other solutions.
Whatever may be the case, Jesus’ point in referring to the incident is that the Law must be understood in accord with the needs of the men it is meant to serve. When David and his men were hungry, they were able to eat bread that normally would not have been available to them under the Law of Moses. In the same way, when Jesus’ disciples are hungry, they are able to pluck the handfuls of grain they need to eat, whether or not this would be in accord with the letter of the Law of Moses.
While the Law is important, it is not to be taken as an absolute, divorced from the human context it is meant to serve.
