80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus states that the event happened 'in the days of Abiathar the high priest' and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.

If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, 'When king David was a shepherd-boy...', it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event certainly did happen 'in the days of Abiathar', as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his father's whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul's men. Therefore, Jesus' statement is quite acceptable.

(Archer 1994:362)

In response to the Pharisee’s accusation that Jesus’ disciples had broken the
Law of Moses by plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath, the master Teacher
called His critics’ attention to the time when King David was hungry and
“entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for
him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests”
(Matthew 12:4). Jesus was referring to the incident recorded in 1 Samuel 21
when David feared for his life, fled from King Saul, and ate the holy bread of
the Tabernacle. One questioner recently asked: “Was it not the case that
David, in 1 Sam. 21-22, had divine authorization to eat the showbread which
was not otherwise lawful? Three times in chapter 22, it is said that the
priest, who gave the showbread to David, ‘inquired of the Lord’ for him. Did
David not acquire permission from God before getting the showbread?” If so,
how could Jesus say that David’s actions were “unlawful” (Matthew 12:4; Mark
2:26; Luke 6:4)?

First, it certainly was the case that the consecrated showbread of the
Tabernacle was reserved for the priests. Moses specifically noted that
“Aaron and his sons shall eat…the bread that is in the basket, by the door
of the tabernacle of meeting…. [B]ut an outsider shall not eat them ,
because they are holy. And if any…of the bread remains until the morning, then
you shall burn the remainder with fire. It shall not be eaten, because it is
holy” (Exodus 29:32-34). “[I]t shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall
eat it in a holy place” (Leviticus 24:9).

Second, simply because the treacherous and murderous Doeg and the incensed,
unstable, and envious King Saul accused Ahimelech, priest of Israel, of
inquiring of the Lord on David’s behalf does not mean that he did (1 Samuel
22:9-10,13). But didn’t Ahimelech himself confess to consulting the Lord in 1
Samuel 22:15? Admittedly, many English translations render the verse in such a
way that certainly leaves the impression that Ahimelech asked something of the
Lord on David’s behalf. (“Was that day the first time I inquired of God for
him? Of course not!”—NIV.) However, could Ahimelech have actually meant that
he did not inquire of God on David’s behalf? “Have I today begun to
inquire of God for him? Be it far from me” (ASV). Could this statement
possibly mean, “I have never inquired of God on David’s behalf, and I did not
start doing so today”?

Third, even if Ahimelech did actually inquire of God on David’s
behalf, such mediation does not mean that he asked God if David and his men
could eat the consecrated showbread, which the Law of Moses prohibited. Notice
that King Saul accused Ahimelech of having “given him bread and a sword, and
have inquired of God for him , that he should rise against me, to lie in
wait, as it is this day” (1 Samuel 22:13). To assume and to assert that David
was not guilty of breaking a law of Moses because he received special
permission to eat the showbread when the priest consulted the Lord on David’s
behalf, is to say much more than the text actually states. If Ahimelech did
actually ask the Lord something on David’s behalf (which 1 Samuel 21 does not
record, and may have all been a lie started by Doeg), then it could have been
about any number of things, including (and most likely) about where David
should go and whether he should travel to the Philistine city of Gath in order
to escape the grasp of King Saul. Nothing is stated in the text that
Ahimelech inquired of God as to whether he should give David the showbread.

Fourth, though David was a great servant of the Lord, he was not without his
sins. Did he eat the forbidden showbread? Yes. And in the same account, do we
not also learn that David told a blatant lie? Indeed, he lied to Ahimelech
when he claimed, “The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me,
‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or
what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my young men to such and such
a place” (1 Samuel 21:2). King Saul never ordered David on “some business”;
David was fleeing from Saul in order to save his life. If David was willing to
lie to save his life at a weak moment, we should not be surprised that he was
also willing to consume forbidden food.

The fact is, Jesus rightly and masterfully pointed out the unlawful actions of
David to a group of hypocritical Pharisees who apparently had overlooked their
beloved David’s blatantly sinful actions in 1 Samuel 21. Yet these same
Pharisees wrongly criticized Jesus and His apostles for breaking the Sabbath.
In truth, the only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke (at least on this occasion)
was the Pharisaical misinterpretation of the law (which seems to have been
more sacred to the Pharisees than the Law itself).

[*For further explanation of Jesus’ statements in Matthew 12:1-14, see our
other articles “[Did Jesus Condone Law-
Breaking?](https://www.apologeticspress.org/AllegedDiscrepancies.aspx?article=1276&b=Matthew)”
and “[Situation Ethics—Extended
Version](https://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=645&topic=38).”]

Christianity has long understood that the ceremonial law was made for man, not man for the law, and that acts of mercy and necessity supersede strict ritual adherence—a principle fully revealed and fulfilled in Christ.

Critics of Christ 2,000 years ago once saw His disciples walking through a
field plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath and accused them of doing that
which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:1-8; Mark 2:23-28). As was often
His practice, Jesus responded to His enemies with a question (cf. Matthew
12:10-12; 15:2-3; 21:23-25). He asked: “Have you never read what David did
when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the
house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread,
which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those
who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26). Nearly twenty centuries this side of the
Pharisees’ criticisms, Christ’s critics today allege that He erred in His
response. In an article titled, “Tough Questions for the Christian Church,”
skeptic Dennis McKinsey stated:

> How can it be that Jesus contradicts the Old Testament (1 Samuel 21:1-2),
> saying that Abiathar gave David the showbread instead of Ahimelech, and
> saying that David had men with him, when he was actually alone (Mark
> 2:25-26)? Does the church expect me to rely upon the teachings of a “son of
> God” who is demonstrably mistaken about what God’s Word says? (1998).

Supposedly, Christ mistakenly spoke of Abiathar when He should have said
Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1), and referred to David’s companions when he
allegedly had none at that time. Are these accusations justified? Was Jesus
wrong?

Admittedly, 1 Samuel 21:1 does speak of David visiting “Ahimelech the priest,”
rather than Abiathar. However, when Jesus spoke of this event 1,000 years
later, He did not say that “Abiathar gave David the showbread,” as McKinsey
alleged. Jesus referred to the event as occurring “in the time of Abiathar
the high priest” (NASB, emp. added; Greek _epi_ _Abiathar archiereos_) or
“in the days of Abiathar the high priest” (cf. KJV, NKJV, NIV, emp.
added), and not necessarily while Abiathar was the high priest. According to
Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich in their _Greek-English Lexicon of the New
Testament_ , the word _epi_ can function simply as a “marker of temporal
associations,” meaning simply “in the time of, at, on, for” (2000, p. 367).
The phrase “in the time/days of” may be intended to modify Abiathar’s entire
life, rather than just his priesthood. And, his “priesthood” could have been
mentioned merely to clarify the person to whom Jesus was referring. The fact
is, Abiathar was a son of Ahimelech, and served as high priest during the
reign of King David (cf. 1 Kings 1:7). What’s more, based upon how much more
information the Bible gives us about Abiathar, he was probably much more well
known than his father among the Jews.

If someone today were to speak of how many Christians were imprisoned “in the
days of Paul, the apostle,” it may be that he actually was referring to the
time before Paul became an apostle, yet still referred to him as “Paul, the
apostle.” Such language would not force one to conclude that the reference
to the imprisonment of Christians must be confined to the time when Paul
was an apostle. Similarly, since Jesus did not specifically say that Abiathar
was the high priest who ministered to David, but simply that the event
occurred during the lifetime of Abiathar (who later became the high priest),
the allegation that Jesus erred is superfluous.

But what about the accusation that while “David…was actually alone” during his
visit with Ahimelech, Jesus indicated that he had men “with him” (Mark
2:25-26)? Did Jesus err in this regard? This charge is simply another instance
where skeptics refuse to treat the biblical text fairly in hopes of finding a
genuine mistake. Consider the situation where a colonel in the army might
visit a general’s quarters “alone” to discuss provisions for his men, while
instructing his men to wait for him at a nearby designated location. In one
sense, the colonel was alone with the general, yet in another sense, the
colonel and his men had traveled to the general’s location in order to
request essential provisions that would have been used for both the colonel
and those who were with him.

No doubt, McKinsey based this second accusation upon what Ahimelech first
asked David when the future king of Israel came unto him: “Why are you alone,
and no one is with you” (1 Samuel 21:1)? If one were to stop at this point
without considering subsequent verses, he may very well come to the conclusion
that Jesus blundered in His reference to the events in 1 Samuel 21:1. However,
following Ahimelech’s question (“Why are you alone?”), David informed him, “I
have directed my young men to such and such a place” (21:2). Thus, although
David may have entered the presence of Ahimelech without his men, he informed
Ahimelech that he had directed them elsewhere while he visited with him.
Ahimelech obviously understood David to mean that the men were not too far
away, and were hungry, because he informed David that although he had no
common bread to eat, there was holy bread, “if the young men have at least
kept themselves from women” (21:4, emp. added). David responded by saying,
“Truly, women have been kept from us …. And the vessels of the young
men are holy” (21:5, emp. added).

To assert that Jesus erred in these two instances is to claim that which
cannot be proven. The truth is, Jesus referred to this Old Testament event in
a way very similar to how we converse today about various matters—whether
using a figure of speech, called prolepsis, where we assign a name or title to
a time that precedes it, or where we refer to someone being alone in one
sense, and a part of a larger group at the same time. Such accusations appear
to say more about the heart of the critic than the truthfulness of Jesus and
the Bible writers.

[NOTE: For a full refutation of the idea that Jesus condoned breaking the
Sabbath law, or that Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28 can be used legitimately
as proof texts to justify situation ethics, please see Lyons
(2003) and Miller (2003).]

Mark 2:26—Was Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar as high priest instead of Ahimelech?

Problem: Jesus says that at the time David ate the consecrated bread, Abiathar was high priest. Yet 1 Samuel 21:1–6 mentions that the high priest at that time was Ahimelech.

Solution: First Samuel is correct in stating that the high priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand neither was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at Christ’s words we notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26) which does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was high priest at the time David ate the bread. After David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King Saul had Ahimelech killed (1 Sam. 22:17–19). Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20) and later took the place of the high priest. So even though Abiathar was made high priest after David ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in office.

---