The Pharisees certainly did not think that the Son of God was beyond reproach. Following Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand, they came “testing” Him, asking Him to show them a sign from heaven (Matthew 16:1). Later in the gospel of Matthew (19:3ff.), the writer recorded how “the Pharisees also came to Him,testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ ” It was their aim on this occasion, as on numerous other occasions, to entangle Jesus in His teachings by asking Him a potentially entrapping question—one that, if answered in a way that the Pharisees had anticipated, might bring upon Jesus the wrath of Herod Antipas (cf. Matthew 14:1-12; Mark 6:14-29) and/or some of His fellow Jews (e.g., the school of Hillel, or the school of Shammai). A third time the Pharisees sought to “entangle Him in His talk” (Matthew 22:15) as they asked, “Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” (22:17). The jealous and hypocritical Pharisees were so relentless in their efforts to destroy the Lord’s influence that on one occasion they even accused Jesus’ disciples of breaking the law as they “went through the grainfields on the Sabbath…were hungry, and began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Matthew 12:1ff.). [NOTE: “Their knowledge of so trifling an incident shows how minutely they observed all his deeds” (Coffman, 1984, p. 165). The microscopic scrutiny under which Jesus lived, likely was even more relentless than what some “stars” experience today. In one sense, the Pharisees could be considered the “paparazzi” of Jesus’ day.] Allegedly, what the disciples were doing on this particular Sabbath was considered “work,” which the Law of Moses forbade (Matthew 12:2; cf. Exodus 20:9-10; 34:21).Jesus responded to the criticism of the Pharisees by giving the truth of the matter, and at the same time revealing the Pharisees’ hypocrisy. As was somewhat customary for Jesus when being tested by His enemies (cf. Matthew 12:11-12; 15:3; 21:24-25; etc.), He responded to the Pharisees’ accusation with two questions. First, He asked: “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he 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?” (12:3-4). Jesus reminded the Pharisees of an event in the life of David (recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1ff.), where he and others, while fleeing from king Saul, ate of the showbread, which divine law restricted to the priests (Leviticus 24:5-9). Some commentators have unjustifiably concluded that Jesus was implying innocence on the part of David (and that God’s laws are subservient to human needs—cf. Zerr, 1952, 5:41; Dummelow, 1937, p. 666), and thus He was defending His disciples “lawless” actions with the same reasoning. Actually, however, just the opposite is true. Jesus explicitly stated that what David did was wrong (“not lawful”—12:4), and that what His disciples did was right—they were “guiltless” (12:7). Furthermore, as J.W. McGarvey observed: “If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end even of self-denial” (1875, p. 104). The disciples were not permitted by Jesus to break the law on this occasion (or any other) just because it was convenient (cf. Matthew 5:17-19). The Pharisees simply were wrong in their accusations. The only “law” Jesus’ disciples broke was the Pharisaical interpretation of the law (which seems to have been more sacred to the Pharisees than the law itself). In response to such hyper-legalism, Burton Coffman forcefully stated:In the Pharisees’ view, the disciples were guilty of threshing wheat!Such pedantry, nit-picking, and magnification of trifles would also have made them guilty of irrigating land, if they had chanced to knock off a few drops of dew while passing through the fields!The Pharisees were out to “get” Jesus; and any charge was better than none (1984, p. 165, emp. added).Jesus used the instruction of 1 Samuel 21 to get the Pharisees to recognize their insincerity, and to justify His disciples. David, a man about whom the Jews ever boasted, blatantly violated God’s law by eating the showbread, and yet the Pharisees justified him. On the other hand, Jesus’ disciples merely plucked some grain on the Sabbath while walking through a field, an act that the law did not forbid, and yet the Pharisees condemned them. Had the Pharisees not approved of David’s conduct, they could have responded by saying, “You judge yourself. You’re all sinners.” Their reaction to Jesus’ question, however, was that of hypocrites who had been exposed—silence.Jesus then asked a second question, saying, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless?” (Matthew 12:5). Here, Jesus wanted the Pharisees to acknowledge that even the law itself condonedsomework on the Sabbath day. Although the Pharisees acted as ifallwork was banned on this day, it was actually the busiest day of the week for priests.They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices (Num. xxviii. 9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties (McGarvey, n.d., pp. 211-212).One of those “other duties” would have been to circumcise young baby boys when the child’s eighth day fell on a Sabbath. The purpose of Jesus citing these “profane” priestly works was to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not unconditional. [NOTE: Jesus used the term “profane,” not because there was a real desecration of the temple by the priests as they worked, but “to express what was true according to the mistaken notions of the Pharisees as to manual works performed on the Sabbath” (Bullinger, 1898, p. 676).] The truth is, the Sabbath law “did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded” (McGarvey, n.d., p. 212). Coffman thus concluded: “Just as the priests served the temple on the Sabbath day and were guiltless, his [Jesus’—EL] disciples might also serve Christ, the Greater Temple, without incurring guilt” (p. 167). Just as the priests who served God in the temple on the Sabbath were totally within the law, so likewise were Jesus’ disciples as they served the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8), Whose holiness was greater than that of the temple (12:6).

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).]