A Proposed Explanation for the Abiathar Reference in Mark 2:26

Ahimelech Giving the Sword of Goliath to David (c.1680) by Aert de Gelder


Thesis: Initially there appears to be a contradiction between Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Mark makes a reference to Abiathar the high priest when discussing the 1 Samuel event. However, 1 Samuel only mentions Ahimelech, who is the father of Abiathar. The conflict is based on the Greek phrase epi Abiathar archiereos in Mark 2:26. I argue that the phrase in question is often misunderstood as an error, a method of scriptural citation, or a temporal reference. The phrase should rather be understood as an indicator of Abiathar’s presence and approval over the event recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Additionally, I argue that Jesus parallels this event with the giving of the Sabbath law. Ahimelech the father gives the bread to David with the silent approval of Abiathar the son. God the Father gives the Sabbath law to Moses with the silent approval of Jesus the Son of God. Therefore, Jesus cites Abiathar instead of Ahimelech to bring out this parallel and emphasize the conclusion of his argument in 2:28 that “the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath”.

This article will review the following:
1. Foreground – Jesus’ Approach to Seeming Contradictions in Scripture.

2. The Abiathar-Ahimelech Difficulty in Mark 2:26
3. The Most Common Attempts at Solutions.
4. Proposed Solution: The Abiathar Reference Points to Christ.
5. Comparison with Another Solution.
6. Summary.

1. Foreground – Jesus’ Approach to Seeming Contradictions in Scripture.
In Mark 12:35-37 Jesus gives us a model to follow in interpreting with seemingly contradictory passages in Scripture. Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1, which indicates the Messiah would be greater than King David, the Psalm’s author. Then he contrasts that with the prophecy that the Messiah would be a descendant of David (2 Samuel 7:12-14, Isaiah 11:1). Having made this juxtaposition, he asks how the Messiah could be greater than his father in his father’s own presence.

This question may seem a little awkward to modern Westerners since moderns’ tendency to egalitarianism causes them to forget that most of history recognized a primacy of the father over the son that would be identified as a superiority over the son. However, this should not prevent the reader from seeing the difficulty as it was proposed by Jesus.

Jesus highlights this problem to help the people see that the Messiah will be more than the son of David - he will be the unique Son of God. Even though he will have descended from David according to the flesh, his divinity will be the source of his being greater than his father David. But this solution was not self-evident. When Jesus points out the problem, it seems that the teachers do not see any solution possible. This would seem to them to be an intractable problem. The solution existed in the Person of Jesus and the knowledge of his divinity, which they do not see.

The scriptural interpretation lesson is to resist discouragement when one encounters apparent contradictions, but rather to engage one’s mind to search out the deeper truth the Lord has reserved for those who persevere in seeking Him (cf. Mark 13:13). Furthermore, it is critical to keep in mind the truth of the Incarnation, as many apparent difficulties resolve themselves in the crucible of the Word made flesh.

2. The Abiathar-Ahimelech Difficulty in Mark 2:26
With this understanding as background, let us turn to one particularly difficult passage in Mark 2:23-28:

23 One sabbath he was going through the grainfields; and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 25 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: 26 how he 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?” 27 And he said to them, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath; 28 so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.”

The difficulty is that 2:26 appears to contradict 1 Samuel 21:1-6, which refers to Ahimelech being the priest involved, not Abiathar. Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech and at a time after this event became high priest under King David, but there is no reference to Abiathar in the 1 Samuel passage.

Many possible solutions to this problem have been proposed, but any satisfactory solution should meet the following criteria:
1. Resolve the negative difficulty – the challenge to inerrancy.
2. Give a positive explanation for its presence in the verse.
3. Fit the grammar of the verse.
4. Fit the context of Mark 2:23-28.
5. Fit the context of Mark as a whole.

3. The Most Common Attempts at Solutions.
The Non-Solution of Concluding the Text Is Erroneous. One common solution is not a solution at all. Some simply suggest the text is in error. Ahimelech was meant, but Abiathar was written. In fact, an early version of the New American Bible in the footnote to the Matthean parallel (12:1-8), states that the Markan reference to Abiathar was an error. (There is no reference to either OT priest in Matthew.) Later editions eliminated the error reference most likely because the original note was in conflict with solemn Magisterial teaching. The Magisterium has repeatedly stated in fashion that error in Scripture is incompatible with inspiration by the Holy Spirit. (The papal encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu both emphatically teach the inerrancy of Scripture in all its parts. The Fathers of Vatican II in Dei Verbum, 11 as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 107 affirm this teaching as well. The Church further emphasizes the need to understand the form and manner in which the text speaks and the original intention of the author in determining the truth of a passage.)

The Dual Names Solution. Another relatively simple solution is that Ahimelech and Abiathar were each called by both names. This argument seems to have scriptural plausibility. In 2 Samuel 8:17 Abiathar is stated to be the father of Ahimelech instead of the other way around. Some argue from this that both father and son each bore both names. It may be that they each were called by both names, but there is no other evidence to support this idea, and this evidence isn’t particularly strong. It seems more probable from the context that Abiathar had a son whom he named after his own father, Ahimelech. However, this relationship is similarly uncertain.

The Copyist Error Solution. Another proposal, based also on 2 Samuel 8:17, is that there was a copyist error in the handing down of the texts. Under this idea, a copyist accidentally transposed the names at some critical juncture in the history of the text of 2 Samuel, and this transposed text was behind the Markan reference. This is supported by the existence of a Syriac manuscript that reads Ahimelech as the father. But this version is not supported by any other manuscript tradition.

It may be instead that 2 Samuel 8:17 preserves the historical order, and 1 Samuel somehow got the names transposed. However, this is even less likely as there is no manuscript tradition that supports this notion.

The Scriptural Reference Solution. Another explanation argues that Jesus was simply making reference to a section of Scripture and the phrase in question could be translated “in the passage concerning Abiathar”. Abiathar’s greater prominence later in 1 Samuel would cause the displacement of his father. Those who favor such a position point to Mark 12:26 where the same grammatical phrase appears and seems to indicate that Jesus is basically citing where a passage is in Scripture. (Mark 12:26 will be reviewed later.)

The difficulty with this approach is that there is no evidence elsewhere for identifying sections of Scripture by reference to Abiathar. Additionally, in other explicit citations of the Old Testament in Mark (and in many other books of the New Testament for that matter) there is no concern for identifying the section of the book from which the citation originates. In fact, in 12:10 Jesus neglects to tell his hearers that his Scripture quote is from a Psalm. In Mark’s narrating he tells us in 1:2 that a prophecy is from Isaiah when in fact Isaiah only wrote the second half of the quote. The first half of the quote comes from Malachi. Why would there be a sudden concern for giving the exact location of a Scripture citation? This would simply be a highly unusual means for citing Old Testament scripture in the New Testament.

The Span of Time Solution. The most common solution is the one most English translations follow: to translate the critical phrase in Mark as a temporal reference. In Greek the phrase is epi Abiathar archiereos. The translators usually render this as dealing with time such as “when Abiathar was high priest” (RSV, NAB) or “[i]n the days of Abiathar the high priest” (NIV). This interpretation has two strengths, but each comes with a weakness.

The first strength is that this resolves the challenge to inerrancy by saying that the event took place in the lifetime of Abiathar. Abiathar is mentioned instead of his father because he is more prominent in biblical history. Defenders of this approach will often make use of analogies to political leaders saying that one could describe an event as taking place in the time of President X even though the event precedes the president’s time in office.

The difficulty is that Ahimelech is still the key priest in the event according to 1 Samuel. Skeptics will often view the time solution as special pleading. One could speak of the Vietnam War “in the time of President Carter”. Certainly Carter was alive and a politician during the Vietnam War, but he wasn’t President until after it was over. In most instances speaking in this way would be understood as a mistake. So its resolution of the challenge to inerrancy is weak. Additionally, even if Abiathar is more prominent than his father, why mention either one at all? This interpretation does not even broach the subject.

The second strength is that a temporal interpretation has the markings of a valid translation of the Greek. In the phrase is epi Abiathar archiereos, the word epi is a preposition, and the balance of the phrase is in the genitive. It is not uncommon in the New Testament for this construction to have a temporal meaning.

However, a temporal interpretation is extremely unlikely in the only other instance this construction appears in Mark. In Mark 12:26 we find the prepositional phrase epi tou hatou with the object of the preposition in the genitive. The words tou hatou mean “the bush”. A temporal interpretation would not fit the context of the sentence or even make sense as the verse would read “And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the time of the bush, how God said to him,…” To my knowledge no English translation gives it the unlikely temporal reading. Generally, the translators resort to the other concept discussed above of having the phrase assist in identifying where in the book the citation comes from.

In short, the construction is not locked into a temporal reading here. Below I argue that a temporal reading is inappropriate in the Abiathar phrase partially because it is inappropriate in the bush phrase. Additionally, I argue that in both instances Jesus is making a more subtle allusion that reinforces the meaning of each passage.

4. Proposed Solution: The Abiathar Reference Points to Christ.
A Locative Interpretation. The phrase epi Abiathar archiereos may be understood in a locative sense instead of a temporal or other sense. Thus the phrase could be translated “by Abiathar the high priest”. The preposition epi with a genitive phrase can be understood in more than one sense, as discussed above. However, the locative sense is not unusual for this construction.[1] Although it’s in the minority in regards to English translations, the Douay-Rheims’ rendering is not exclusive of a locative sense as it reads “under Abiathar the high priest” based on the Latin Vulgate: “sub Abiathar principe sacerdotum”.

As has already been stated, 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is completely silent about Abiathar. Therefore, if epi is translated in a locative sense, then Jesus would be supplementing the information provided in 1 Samuel by indicating that Abiathar was present at the donation of the bread to David.[2]

The Same Problem Is Found in Mark 12:26. There is one other identical grammatical construction in Mark. In Mark 12:26 we find the preposition epi with a genitive phrase: epi tou hatou. The RSV translates it as “in the passage about the bush.” The translators assume that the phrase is intended to give the location in the Scripture of this event, while they assumed that the identical construction in 2:26 referred to a time - “when Abiathar was high priest”. This is an indication that the translators had some uncertainty as to how to treat the phrase in each instance.

It is critical to understanding to examine this phrase in its context. Mark 12:18-27 is the account of Jesus’ argument with the Sadducees about whether there is a resurrection. The Sadducees propose what they consider to be a logic trap for the belief in the resurrection by giving the example of a woman who is married and widowed seven consecutive times. Then they conclude that the resurrection is an absurdity as there is no valid way of determining whose wife she would be after the resurrection. Jesus steps through their trap by pointing out they made a false assumption about the existence of marriage after death. He then proceeds to prove the doctrine of the resurrection by citing God’s words to Moses identifying Himself as the God of the patriarchs. The silent premise is that there is life in the union with God, not death. So if the patriarchs, who died long before Moses, belong to God, then they live in Him in the present tense, according to God’s word.

The phrase in this study appears near the beginning of Jesus’ scriptural proof for the resurrection. The verse reads “And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?” This translation suggests that Jesus uses not just one, but two phrases to locate this passage in Scripture. Jesus using one is rare enough, but this would be the only place in the Gospels where Jesus uses a double reference. The Matthean parallel (Mt. 22:23-33) does not include even one reference.

If the phrase is intended to be locative instead of referential, then it would be rendered “at the bush”.[3] What would this contribute to the passage?

Jesus reinforces his overall meaning with the phrase “at the bush” because the bush becomes an additional scriptural argument for the resurrection. When Moses sees the bush he is surprised. The bush is on fire but it does not burn up (Exodus 3:2-3). The normal expectation for a flaming bush is that it burns and dies. Moses has that expectation and his desire for an explanation leads him to go to the bush. At the bush he learns that it is the power of God that causes the bush to be on fire yet live.

The normal expectation for seeing a person die is to view that death as the end of his existence. The Sadducees hold death as a finality, which is not an unreasonable position. On the contrary, it is an eminently reasonable position. But as Jesus explains in 12:27, it is an eminently wrong position. The lesson of the bush is that despite the expectation of final destruction with fire, or death, the bush lives by the power of God, and so does the one who dies in the kingdom of God. The phrase “at the bush” then is not primarily a tool for finding the quote in the scrolls of Scripture, but a reinforcement of his teaching on the resurrection.

Further Confirmation of a Locative Interpretation in 2:26. Returning to 2:26, Thomas Aquinas and Bede are in agreement with a locative interpretation:

But a question has been raised how the Evangelist called Abiathar at this time High Priest, when the Book of Kings calls him Abimelech.

Bede: There is, however, no discrepancy, for both were there, when David came to ask for bread, and received it: that is to say, Abimelech, the High Priest, and Abiathar his son; but Abimelech having been slain by Saul, Abiathar fled to David, and became the companion of all his exile afterwards. When he came to the throne, he himself also received the rank of High Priest, and the son became of much greater excellence than the father, and therefore was worthy to be mentioned as the High Priest, even during his father’s life-time.[4]

Bede’s locative solution does resolve the challenge to inerrancy, but it provides relatively little help in understanding why Jesus makes reference to Abiathar at all. The argument that Abiathar is mentioned because he was of greater excellence is noteworthy and perhaps sufficient, but it does nothing to reinforce the passage’s meaning. It averts the arrow of an error, but lacks the power to teach. His interpretation is an effective shield, but Bede does not even appear to wonder if perhaps the phrase may be a sword.

The Purpose of the Abiathar Reference. When Matthew's version of this event is related in 12:1-8 there is no reference at all to any high priest. This has led some who believe that Mark wrote first, that Matthew was correcting Mark's mistake by omitting this reference. If Matthew wrote first and Mark made use of Matthew, then Mark added this line, presumably from Peter's recollection. Then the natural question is, "Why would Mark add this?" Presumably because Jesus said it, but this only postpones the question. Why would Jesus have said it?

Let us look again at 1 Samuel 21:1-6. There Ahimelech was the priest. Abiathar was his son and there is little reason to think he is not present when David is given the bread of the presence. In the aftermath of this incident (1 Samuel 22:11-23) Saul kills Ahimelech and his household, except Abiathar who escapes and joins David. Abiathar is immediately employed as a priest by David and serves as high priest when David becomes king. By allying himself with David at the earliest opportunity and the lack of any statement of disapproval of David's taking the bread of the presence, Abiathar indicates his approval of the provision of bread to David. In a certain sense, Abiathar's approval is equal to Ahimelech's since they took place simultaneously and both confirmed it by their actions - Ahimelech, the father, at the moment of the provision and by his willingly being martyred for his support of God and David - Abiathar, the son, implicitly by his subsequent relationship to David.

From this a certain contrast can be made with the 1 Samuel 21:1-6 account and Jesus' account. 1 Samuel focuses on the father's authority in making judgments concerning the conflict of laws of Israel. Jesus focuses, in a complementary way, on the son's authority in this regard. Why does Jesus change the focus? To emphasize his own authority in the matter of the sabbath observance.

Jesus parallels Ahimelech with God the Father and Abiathar with himself, God the Son. God the Father gave to Moses the Ten Commandments, including the commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. If Jesus is the Son of God, then he was also present at this revelation and approved of it despite there being no explicit reference to the Son of God on Mt. Sinai, just like there was no mention of Abiathar at the provision of the bread to David.

In the Old Testament the Lord God is considered to be the Lord of the Sabbath. Exodus 20:10a says, "but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord, your God." In Mark 2:28 Jesus speaks of his own authority over the Sabbath and over the observance of the Sabbath law, "so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath." Jesus thus shows that the Father's authority over the Sabbath is also his own authority. Therefore, Jesus refers to Abiathar as being the high priest to emphasize his - the son's - role in approving of the action and in confirming it in his subsequent life, in order to reveal how Jesus is in complete unity with God the Father in exercising authority and to reveal that the authority of God is present to the people in Jesus.

In short, Jesus' reference to Abiathar the high priest showed that he wanted 1 Samuel 21:1-6 to be understood christologically as referring to the Son of Man as the Son of God. Jesus thereby alludes to, albeit cryptically, his own union with the Father and the authority and office of the Incarnate Son of God as high priest.

5. Comparison with Another Solution.
There is one other proposed solution that warrants discussion. Dr. Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch provide a brief, but powerful interpretation in The Gospel of Mark: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible:

Jesus probably mentioned Abiathar instead of Ahimelech to post a warning for the Pharisees. Abiathar is infamous in OT history as the last high priest of his line, who was banished from Jerusalem and the priesthood for opposing Solomon, the son of David and the heir of his kingdom (1 Kings 2:26-27). He thus represents the end of an old order that passes away with the coming of David’s royal successor. As Jesus compares himself and the disciples with David and his men, he likewise draws the Pharisees into the story by casting them as figures like Abiathar. The Pharisees, then, represent an old order of covenant leadership that is about to expire, and if they persist in their opposition to Jesus, the new heir of the Davidic kingdom, they will meet the same disastrous fate that befell Abiathar. Jesus’ allusion to this OT tradition was a subtle yet strategic way to caution the Pharisees against their antagonism to his ministry.[5]

Although there are some clear differences between my interpretation and the Hahn-Mitch interpretation (the lost priesthood interpretation), there is a great deal to commend in their analysis. They solve the inerrancy challenge, provide a substantive rationale for the phrase’s inclusion, and provide an interpretation that fits neatly within the theology of Mark’s Gospel. Notably, their interpretation has the benefit of reinforcing the messianic message of Jesus as the son of David, and it is easily seen to be in line with Mark’s relaying of the succession of the kingdom of God over the Temple, and its concomitant termination of the high priesthood (cf. 14:63; Leviticus 21:10). The biggest difference between the Hahn-Mitch interpretation and mine is that they interpret Abiathar negatively and in connection with the Pharisees while I interpret him positively and in connection with Jesus. Ultimately, there are three reasons why I do not subscribe to lost priesthood interpretation.

First, in the simplest reading of the passage Abiathar is shown in a positive light. Jesus connects Abiathar to the giving of the bread to David, and he praises this act, and in a sense repeats it. Furthermore, in the events that immediately followed 1 Samuel 21:1-6, Abiathar proves himself faithful to God and to David, which led to his becoming high priest. Abiathar does eventually oppose Solomon, but that is fairly distant from the event Jesus refers to. It is not unusual for an Old Testament type of Christ to eventually succumb to some evil. This does not negate any positive typology associated with that person. In this case there is no reason to think that Abiathar’s eventual conflict with Solomon invalidates an interpretation of him as a type of Christ.

Second, since the lost priesthood interpretation is geared towards priests, it would have been stronger if Jesus’ interlocuters had been priests instead of generic Pharisees.

Third, their interpretation does little to reinforce the specific meaning of the passage regarding the proper understanding of the Sabbath.

6. Summary.
In summary, this proposed interpretation of the problematic phrase - epi Abiathar archiereos - meets the criteria for an acceptable solution set forth above. The identification of a parallel construction of Jesus with Abiathar accompanied by a locative interpretation defeats the challenge to inerrancy. By the same token it gives a positive explanation for the phrase being present at all, whereas most of the alternative arguments treat it as an incidental statement to be explained away. This positive explanation reinforces the passage’s conclusion that “the Son of man is lord even of the Sabbath” as it provides a connection to the Son of man’s involvement in the giving of the Sabbath law. It does not violate the grammar of the verse as the phrase may be translated in a locative sense. This is reinforced by the similar situation of an equivalent construction in 12:26. Finally, as it refers back to Jesus’ divinity, it fits into the program of Jesus implicitly showing himself to be the Son of God throughout the entirety of the Gospel, which is a fundamental theme of the Gospel of Mark.[6]

Notes.
[1] Hewett, James Allen, New Testament Greek: A Beginning and Intermediate Grammar (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishing, 1986), 210. Hewett identifies epi with the genitive as having the locative meaning “on” or “over”. Hewett doesn’t give any other translations for this construction.
[2] The New Testament occasionally provides historical information about OT passages that is not present in the original accounts. Examples of this include Paul’s reference to the Rock following Israel in the desert (1 Cor. 10:4) and Paul’s identification of Pharaoh’s sorcerers as Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8).
[3] The Douay-Rheims translates this phrase within another clause, “have you not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spoke to him…” “[I]n the bush” translates the Latin Vulgate’s super rubum.
[4] Thomas Aquinas Catena Aurea, Vol. II, St. Mark (trans. John Dobree Dalgairns [Albany, NY: Preserving Christian Publications, Inc, 1999]), 51. The Catena uses the spelling “Abimelech” instead of the more common “Ahimelech”.
[5] Hahn, Scott and Mitch, Curtis, The Gospel of Mark: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, p. 22 (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001).
[6] Hornecker, James, The Lion’s Roar: A Beginner’s Bible Study on the Gospel of St. Mark, (Port Charlotte, FL: Family Life Center Publications, 2003), 22-23.