ARTICLES

Volume 51 - Issue 1

A Better Priest and the Problem of Abiathar: Literary and Biblical-Theological Reflections on Mark 2:23–28

By Matthew Emadi

I began my NSBT volume, The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology, with a quote from a sermon Don Carson preached, called “Getting Excited about Melchizedek.”¹ The title of the sermon alone testifies to Dr. Carson’s love for the Bible and for biblical theology. I wonder how many Christians can say they have ever been excited about Melchizedek? For some, pronouncing his name correctly is scary enough, let alone understanding his role in redemptive history. Dr. Carson was excited about Melchizedek because he loves the gospel and the glory of Christ’s new covenant priesthood. He preached on Melchizedek—something many would be unwilling to do at a national conference—because he wanted Christians to understand the unity of Scripture. Dr. Carson has spent his life teaching us how to do biblical theology, and I am forever grateful for his guidance.

The purpose of this short article is to honor Don Carson’s legacy by presenting a literary and biblical-theological interpretation of Mark’s problematic phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως (often translated “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”) in Mark 2:26:²

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, in the time of Abiathar the 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?” (Mark 2:25–26, ESV, emphasis mine)

The problem, of course, is that Abiathar’s father Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was the high priest when David entered the house of God (1 Sam 21:1; cf. 1 Sam 22:20). What are we to make of this? I first grappled with Mark 2:26 while writing on Jesus’s priesthood in Mark’s Gospel for a chapter in my NSBT volume. I quickly discovered that the numerous scholarly studies on Mark 2:26 seemed to have exhausted all possible interpretative and textual solutions.³ It is appropriate, therefore, to ask if a text that has almost as many interpretations as interpreters deserves yet another investigation? I believe so, but I am not of the opinion that we still lack a satisfying explanation. The work done by Perrin and Bowes persuasively demonstrates that Mark included the phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως to evoke a particular Old Testament storyline that supports his messianic portrait of Jesus as the true priest and Son of David.⁴ As Bowes suggests, Mark’s reference to Abiathar is not a sloppy failure to get the facts of history straight but part of a “deftly crafted, coherent, and connected” narrative meant to teach the reader about Jesus’s identity and the demise of his religious opponents.⁵ Jesus, like David who ate the bread of the presence, is a priestly king, and his disciples, like David’s men, are a priestly people in service of the true king. Jesus’s opponents, however, are like Abiathar the high priest who started well but ended up as the only priest in the Old Testament ever deposed of his office. To resist Jesus, then, is to find oneself on the wrong side of redemptive history.

My aim is to complement the work of Perrin and Bowes by offering some fresh literary and biblical-theological lines of argumentation that help explain why Mark chose to include the phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως in his description of the grainfield controversy.To this end, I will first examine the literary context of Mark 2:1–3:6, paying particular attention to Mark’s emphasis on meals with Jesus in Mark 2:13–28, to demonstrate that the reference to Abiathar contributes to a larger narrative portrait of Jesus as the messianic priest. Second, I will show how the phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως guides the reader toward a correct interpretation of David’s actions at Nob. In other words, David’s priestly meal in 1 Samuel 21:1–6 is part of 1–2 Samuel’s narrative portrayal of David as a prophetic type of the priestly messiah who would fulfill God’s promise concerning a faithful priest described in 1 Samuel 2:35. The phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως is not merely a warning for the religious leadership resisting Jesus—they, like Abiathar, will be rejected by God—but an indication that Jesus is the greater Son of David and the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to raise up a faithful priest (1 Sam 2:35). Due to space constraints, my analysis will be brief and suggestive. My hope is that the interpretation here will stimulate further reflection on this important text.

1. Mark 2:1–3:6: Chiastic Structure, Covenant Meals, and a Priestly Messiah

Joanna Dewey has demonstrated that the conflict narratives of Mark 2:1–3:6 form a chiastic structure with the prediction of Jesus’s death in Mark 2:20 at the center of the chiasm.⁶ My description of the chiastic literary structure is as follows:

A Mark 2:1–12: Miraculous healing and the forgiveness of sins

B Mark 2:13–17: A meal with sinners at the house of Levi

C Mark 2:18–22: The new wine of the kingdom

B′ Mark 2:23–28: A meal of grain with the priest-king of Israel

A′ Mark 3:1–6: Miraculous healing on the Sabbath

The literary structure exposes the common themes in each of the pericopes. The three central pericopes (B, C, B′) involve meals and are mutually interpretive. In Mark 2:13–17, Jesus eats with sinners at the house of Levi. In Mark 2:18–22, Jesus defends feasting instead of fasting with an illustration about a bridegroom and new wine. In Mark 2:23–28, Jesus’s disciples eat heads of grain on the Sabbath. A brief examination of Mark 2:13–17 and 2:18–22 will help to decipher how Jesus’s mention of Abiathar supports Mark’s Christological argument in this section of his Gospel (2:1–3:6).

1.1. Mark 2:13–17: A Meal with Sinners at the House of Levi

Jesus’s meal at Levi’s house (Mark 2:13–17) is parallel to the grainfield controversy in Mark 2:23–28. On the heels of cleansing the leper and forgiving the paralytic—both priestly actions—Jesus calls Levi to be his disciple (2:13–14). Levi, who was likely given the name Matthew after his conversion,⁷ may have been a Levite, a descendant of the priestly tribe of Israel.⁸ The meal that follows Levi’s conversion is a feast at Levi’s house for sinners and tax collectors (2:15–17). Gladd notes that Jesus’s meals with sinners in the Gospels should be understood against the backdrop of the Old Testament sacrificial system. Through their sacrifices, God’s people experienced expiation (purification offerings), consecration (burnt offerings), and fellowship with God in a communion meal (peace offerings).⁹ In Gladd’s words, “The goal of the various sacrifices and offerings is dwelling with God in a covenant meal.”¹⁰ This movement from cleansing to consecration to communion is the same movement we find in the Gospels.¹¹ In Mark’s Gospel, Jesus casts out unclean spirits (1:21–28), cleanses and forgives the unclean and sinful (1:40–2:12), and eats covenant meals with those in need of salvation (2:13–17, 23–28).

It is certainly not a coincidence that Jesus’s meal with sinners at the house of a man named Levi is parallel in the literary structure to the disciples’ meal in the grainfield—a meal Jesus likens to David’s men eating priestly bread. The tribe of Levi was Israel’s priestly tribe, but only through the better ministry of a Davidic priestly messiah did Levi the tax collector become a true Levite. In the context of controversy with Israel’s religious leaders, Mark wants the reader to understand who truly enjoys fellowship with God. Peace with God belongs to those who break bread with Jesus. The tax collectors and sinners at his table are consecrated to God, the true Israel, God’s covenant people, and a kingdom of priests (cf. Exod 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9).

1.2. Mark 2:18–22: The New Wine of the Kingdom

Situated between the parallel passages of the meal at Levi’s house (Mark 2:13–17) and the meal in the grainfield (2:23–28) is a narrative about the new wine of God’s eschatological kingdom. Once again, the controversy pertains to matters of eating and drinking. The disciples of Jesus feast, but the disciples of John and the Pharisees fast. Jesus’s disciples should feast because the bridegroom is with them (2:19). They do not belong to the old religious structures of the scribes and Pharisees—represented by old garments and old wine skins—but to the new age characterized by the fulfillment of God’s promises and the inauguration of God’s dynamic reign through the life and ministry of Christ.

Mark’s carefully crafted narrative is rich in theological significance. Jesus’s discussion of the new wine of his kingdom (2:22) flows right into a description of the disciples eating grain (2:23). The wine and the grain anticipate the elements of another significant meal in Mark’s Gospel: the wine and bread of the Lord’s Supper. By referencing David’s decision to give (δίδωμι) the priestly bread to his men, Mark not only justifies the actions of Jesus’s disciples in the grainfield, but he also proleptically anticipates the establishment of the Lord’s Supper, where Jesus gives (δίδωμι) the bread and the wine to his disciples during the celebration of the Passover (14:22–25). The first Passover set Israel apart as a royal priesthood;¹² the Lord’s Supper marks out the followers of Jesus as God’s eschatological kingdom of priests. The old must give way to the new.

As we will see below, David’s men became “temporary priests” by eating the bread reserved for priests. In a similar yet greater way, the meal of grain in Mark 2:23–26 points to the priestly identity of Jesus and his disciples. The idea that an established priesthood must come to an end to make way for a new order of priesthood is exactly what 1 Samuel 21:1–8 reveals in describing David’s actions at Nob. Eli’s house would come to an end to make way for a new priest-king like David. Turning now to the Old Testament context of 1 Samuel 21, I will argue that David’s priestly meal is part of a narrative portrait in 1 Samuel that presents David as a type of the faithful priest described in 1 Samuel 2:35. By appealing to David’s actions in the time of Abiathar, Jesus demonstrated a proper understanding of 1 Samuel 21 and revealed the typological significance of his disciple’s meal in the Galilean grainfield.

2. David as the Faithful Priest of 1 Samuel 2:35

By including the phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, Mark invites the reader to interpret 1 Samuel 21 within the broader context of 1–2 Samuel and Solomon’s ascension to David’s throne (1 Kgs 1–2). First Kings 2:27 explicitly identifies Abiathar’s deposition as the fulfillment of God’s promise to cut off the strength of Eli’s house (cf. 1 Sam 2:27–35). Yet, the connection between Abiathar and God’s judgment on Eli’s house is even more significant. God promised to cut off not only Eli’s strength but also the strength of his father’s house, a clear reference to Aaron (1 Sam 2:27–28, 31). The transfer of the priesthood from Abiathar to Zadok fulfills God’s word of judgment on Eli’s house, but Zadok was a descendent of Aaron, Eli’s forefather (1 Kgs 2:35). Thus, Zadok is not the final fulfillment of God’s oracle of judgment. The final fulfillment of God’s promise to raise up a faithful priest would come through someone who was not from the tribe of Levi. Although 1–2 Samuel is primarily concerned with the rise of the monarchy in Israel, the promise of a faithful priest at the beginning of the narrative is not a “banal distraction” from the storyline of David’s rise to kingship.¹³ Instead, the promise of a faithful priest informs David’s priest-like actions at various points in the narratives of 1–2 Samuel—wearing the ephod, making offerings, blessing the people, and building an altar—including his partaking of the bread reserved for priests in 1 Samuel 21 (1 Sam 21:1–6; 2 Sam 6:12–14, 17–19; 24:18–25). The books of Samuel present David as a priest-king. He typifies the kind of priestly messiah that will fulfill God’s promise of 1 Samuel 2:35.

3. David and His Men as an Alternative to Eli’s House

Ahimelech’s offer to David and his men to eat the holy bread may suggest that David came to the tabernacle on the Sabbath, the day the priests replaced the bread of the presence (Lev 24:8–9). Ahimelech offered David the bread upon the condition that David’s men had kept themselves from women (1 Sam 21:4). The condition evokes a pivotal moment in Israel’s history when Israel was consecrated to God as a royal priesthood at Mount Sinai (Exod 19:1–25). To meet with God at his mountain sanctuary required that the men of Israel remain clean by not going “near a woman” (Exod 19:5; cf. Lev 15:8). They were to be holy, as they were consecrated to the Lord. David reassured Ahimelech that his men met the requirement: “The vessels of the young men are holy even when it is an ordinary journey. How much more today will their vessels be holy?” (1 Sam 21:5, ESV). Leithart suggests that the use of “holy,” instead of “clean,” indicates that David’s men had been consecrated as “temporary priests” for their participation in a holy war.¹⁴ The holiness of these “temporary priests” is a powerful contrast to the immoral priests Hophni and Phineas. David’s men refrained from women, gaining access to the bread reserved for priests, whereas Hophni and Phineas “lay with the women who were serving at the entrance of the tent of meeting,” disqualifying themselves from the priesthood (1 Sam 2:22).

The contrast between David and his men and Eli’s sons is even more profound. According to 1 Samuel 2:36, when Eli’s descendants are completely deposed of the priesthood, those remaining in his house will come to the newly appointed faithful priest to ask for a piece of silver or a loaf of “bread,” saying, “Please put me in one of the priest’s places, that I may eat a morsel of bread.” Eli’s descendants will desire to do what David and his men do in 1 Samuel 21:1–6, namely, occupy the place of the priests to enjoy a morsel of bread. Eli’s house will no longer enjoy the privileges of the priesthood, privileges that 1 Samuel 21:1–8 associates with David. Leithart also observes that the repetition of the word “hand” in 1 Samuel 21:1–8 (vv. 3, 4, 8) recalls God’s instructions to Moses to ordain priests by filling their hands (Exod 29:19–25; Lev 8:25–28).¹⁵ David was not ordained a priest, but in 1 Samuel 21 his hands are filled. A priest-king like David will take ownership of the priesthood when God cuts off the strength of Eli’s house.

It is also important to note that David’s interaction with Ahimelech at Nob is part of an exodus motif. David was on the run from Saul, just as Israel fled Pharaoh during the first exodus. God fed Israel with bread from heaven, just as the priest fed David and his men with bread from the tabernacle, a microcosm of heaven itself.¹⁶ Israel came to Sinai, God’s dwelling place, where they were to refrain from women and be consecrated as a royal priesthood. David and his men came to the tabernacle, God’s dwelling place, where they partook of bread because they had refrained from women and were holy, consecrated to Yahweh. David’s exodus, like the first exodus and Jesus’s new exodus, forms the “foundation of a new nation” made up of priestly “disciples.”¹⁷

4. Concluding Reflections

Returning to the grainfield controversy in Mark 2:23–28, we can appreciate Mark’s masterful understanding of the Old Testament and how the reference to the events of 1 Samuel 21:1–6 “in the time of Abiathar” support Mark’s Christological aims. Mark’s description of the disciples plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath as they made their “way” alludes to Isaiah 40:3 and recalls Mark’s use of the same verse at the beginning of the Gospel (Mark 1: 1–3). The new exodus Mark announced at the beginning of the narrative continues to play out in Jesus’s ministry in the Galilean grainfield. The disciples are part of this new exodus. Jesus, like David, is their priest-king, and they, like David’s men and Israel at Sinai, are a priestly people. David’s men ate bread from the “house of God,” but Jesus’s disciples eat grain from a field, implying that all of creation is Christ’s temple.

When the Pharisees accuse Jesus’s disciples of breaking the Sabbath, Jesus justifies their actions with a correct reading of 1 Samuel 21. The genius of Jesus’s appeal to David’s priestly meal at Nob and situating it “in the time of Abiathar” is that the two together—1 Samuel 21 and Abiathar—require us to understand David’s actions at Nob and, indeed, the logic of Jesus’s argument in light of God’s promise to judge Eli’s house and raise up a faithful priest (1 Sam 2:27–35). As we have already observed, Abiathar’s removal is presented as the fulfillment of God’s word of judgment on Eli’s house (1 Sam 2:31; 1 Kgs 2:27). By mentioning Abiathar, Jesus tethers David’s actions at Nob to God’s promise to raise up a faithful priest who will not be from the house of Eli or the house of Eli’s father Aaron (1 Sam 2:27–28, 31). David is a partial fulfillment of the promised priest of 1 Samuel 2:35 but not the ultimate fulfillment. That honor belongs to Jesus. He is a priest-king who does not trace his lineage through Aaron but through Judah. He is a priest-king of a superior order than the Levitical priesthood. He is, as David says in Psalm 110:4, “a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” And his priesthood is worth getting excited about.