ABIATHAR
When Absalom rebelled against his father and attempted to seize the throne, Abiathar remained loyal to David. Abiathar was among those who fled the capital city with David (2 Samuel 15:24). Zadok and the Levites carried the ark of the covenant, "and Abiathar offered sacrifices until all the people had finished leaving the city" (2 Samuel 15:24). Although David admired the loyalty and faithfulness of the priests, he ordered them to return to the city with the ark. This proved helpful because they could then send word to David about Absalom's plans (2 Samuel 15:27–29; 17:15–16). David was restored to his throne, and Abiathar to his priestly office.
Things changed as David's son Solomon took the throne. Abiathar was not loyal to the new king. Adonijah, another of David's sons, put himself forward as king with the help of Joab (one of David's nephews) and Abiathar (1 Kings 1:5, 7). Once the threat from Adonijah was neutralized, King Solomon dealt with the conspirators. One of Solomon's actions was to remove Abiathar from the priestly office. This fulfilled the Lord's word of judgment over Eli and his descendants, which impacted Abiathar since he was related to Eli (1 Samuel 3:12–14; 1 Kings 2:27). It was only because of the priest's loyal service to David that Solomon did not kill him. Solomon told Abiathar, "Go back to your fields in Anathoth. You deserve to die, but I will not put you to death now, because you carried the ark of the Sovereign LORD before my father David and shared all my father's hardships" (1 Kings 2:26). Zadok replaced Abiathar as a priest under Solomon (1 Kings 2:35).
Abiathar lived most of his life in faithful service to the Lord, but he did not finish well. Instead of siding with the rightful king of Israel (2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 1:17), Abiathar assisted one of David's rebellious sons who desired to rule. He allowed earthly matters to become his focus, which cost him the priestly office. Like Abiathar, we can easily get caught up in worldly schemes and lose sight of God's plan. Rather than seeking our way or chasing what seems politically expedient, we should seek to follow God faithfully. Then, when our time on earth is done, we can state with the apostle Paul, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, and I have remained faithful" (2 Timothy 4:7, NLT).
Abiathar
father of abundance, or my father excels, the son of Ahimelech, the high priest. He was the tenth high priest and the fourth in descent from Eli. When his father was slain with the priests of Nob, he escaped, and bearing with him the ephod, he joined David, who was then in the cave of Adullam ( 1 Samuel 22:20-23; 23:6 ). He remained with David and became a priest of the party of which he was the leader ( 1 Samuel 30:7 ). When David ascended the throne of Judah, Abiathar was appointed high priest ( 1 Chronicle 15:11; 1 Kings 2:26 ) and the "king's companion" ( 1 Chronicle 27:34 ). Meanwhile Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, had been made high priest. These appointments continued in force till the end of David's reign ( 1 Kings 4:4 ). Abiathar was deposed (the sole historical instance of the deposition of a high priest) and banished to his home at Anathoth by Solomon because he took part in the attempt to raise Adonijah to the throne. Thus, the priesthood passed from the house of Ithamar ( 1 Samuel 2:30-36; 1 Kings 1:19; 1 Kings 2:26, 1 Kings 2:27 ). Zadok became the sole high priest. In Mark 2:26, reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar, the high priest." However, from 1 Samuel 22, we learn that this event occurred when Ahimelech, Abiathar's father, was a high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the lifetime of Abiathar and not to the term of his holding the office of the high priest. It is not implied in Mark that he was an actual high priest at the time referred to. Others, however, think that the loaves belonged to Abiathar, a priest, at that time ( Leviticus 24:9 ) and that he either gave them to David or persuaded his father to give them.
The Biblical Account
The Scriptures represent Abiathar descended from Phineas, the son of Eli, and through him from Ithamar, the son of Aaron. He had two sons, Ahimelech and Jonathan, the former of whom was, in Abiathar's lifetime, prominent in the priestly service. He was the son of Ahimelech, the head priest at Nob, who, with his associates, was put to death by King Saul for alleged conspiracy with David.?1 Sam 21:1-9; 22:7 ff; 2 Sam 8:17; 15:27 ff; 1 Ch 18:16; 24:3,6,31.
Abiathar escaped from the massacre of the priests at Nob and fled to David, carrying the ephod with him. This was a fantastic accession to David's strength. Public feeling in Israel was outraged by the slaughter of the priests and turned firmly against Saul. The heir of the priesthood, and in his care the holy ephod, was now with David, who gave his cause prestige and a particular character of legitimacy. David also felt bitterly his having been the unwilling cause of the death of Abiathar's relatives, which made his heart warm toward his friend. Presumably, also, there was a deep religious sympathy between them.
Abiathar seems to have been recognized as David's priest, the medium of consultation with Jehovah through the ephod (1 Samuel 22:20-23; 23:6,9; 30:7-8). He was at the head of the priesthood, along with Zadok (1 Ch. 15:11), when David, after his conquests (1 Ch 13:5; compare 2 Sam. 6), brought the ark to Jerusalem. The two men are mentioned together as high priests eight times in the narrative of the rebellion of Absalom (2 Samuel 15:24 ff). They are mentioned in the last list of David's heads of departments (2 Sam 20:25). Abiathar joined Adonijah in his attempt to seize the throne (1 Ki 1:7-42) and was, for this, deposed from the priesthood. However, he was treated with consideration because of his early comradeship with David (1 Ki 2:26-27). Possibly, he remained high priest emeritus, as Zadok and Abiathar still appear as priests in the lists of the heads of departments for Solomon's reign (1 Ki 4:4). Particularly apt is the passage in Ps. 55:12-14, if one regards it as referring to the relations of David and Abiathar in the time of Adonijah.
There are two additional facts, which, considering the close relations between David and Abiathar, must be regarded as significant. One is that Zadok, Abiathar's junior, is uniformly mentioned first in all the passages in which the two are mentioned together and is treated as the one who is primarily responsible. Turn to the narrative, and see how marked this is. The other similarly significant fact is that in certain incredibly responsible matters (1 Ch 24; 18:16; 2 Sam 8:17), the interests of the line of Ithamar are represented not by Abiathar but by his son Ahimelech. There must have been something in the character of Abiathar to account for these facts, as well as for his deserting David for Adonijah. To sketch his character might be a work for the imagination rather than critical inference. However, it seems clear that though he was a man worthy of David's friendship, he had weaknesses or misfortunes that partially deprived him of effectiveness.
Solomon thus expresses the characteristic priestly function of Abiathar: "because you carried the ark of the Lord Jehovah before David, my father" (1 Kings 2:26). By its tense, the verb denotes not a habitual act but the function of ark bearing, taken as a whole. Zadok and Abiathar, as high priests, had charge of bringing the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chronicle 15:11). We are not told whether it was again moved during the reign of David. Necessarily the priestly superintendence of the ark implies the sacrifices and services that were connected with the ark. The details in Kings indicate the existence of much of the ceremonial described in the Pentateuch, while numerous additional Pentateuchal details are mentioned in Chronicles.
A priestly function much emphasized is that of obtaining answers from God through the ephod (1 Sam 23:6,9; 30:7). The word ephod (see 1 Sam 2:18; 2 Sam 6:14) does not necessarily denote the priestly vestment with the Urim and Thummim (e.g., Lev. 8:7-8), but if anyone denies that this was the ephod of the priest Abiathar, the burden of proof rests upon him. This is not the place for inquiring as to the method of obtaining divine revelations through the ephod.
Abiathar's landed estate was at Anathoth in Benjamin (1 Kings 2:26), one of the cities assigned to the sons of Aaron (Joshua 21:18).
Apart from the men who are expressly said to be descendants of Aaron, this part of the narrative mentions priests three times. David's sons were priests (2 Sam 8:18). This is of a piece with David's carrying the ark on a new cart (2 Sam 6) before the death of Uzza had taught him. "And Ira the Jairite was also David's priest." (2 Sam 20:26). "Zabud the son of Nathan was priest and king's friend" (1 Kings 4:5). These instances seem to indicate that David and Solomon had each a private chaplain. As to the descent and function of these two "priests," we have not a word of information, and it is illegitimate to imagine details concerning them that conflict with the rest of the record.
Critical Opinions Concerning Abiathar
Mark 2:26 Was Abiathar high priest, or was Jesus or the Mark mistaken?
In Mark 2:26, some translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread "when Abiathar was high priest." Since Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, was the high priest when that event occurred, such a translation would seem to result in a historical error.
As atheist Bible scholar, Dr. Bart D. Ehrman explains his assignment, while a student at Princeton Theological Seminary, of having to write a paper dealing with the discrepancy of Mark 2:26: 'he was overly concerned with the idea of turning in anything that did not keep the validity of inerrancy alive.' He said he had to do "fancy exegetical footwork" for that to happen. The context of his recounting the story was that he had to bend heaven and earth to get something resembling an explanation that avoided a historical error, which was not only a daunting task but also time-consuming. Ehrman writes:
At the end of my paper, [Professor Story] wrote a simple one-line comment that went straight through me for some reason. He wrote: "Maybe Mark just made a mistake." I started thinking about it, considering all the work I had put into the paper, realizing that I had to do some fancy exegetical footwork to get around the problem and that my solution was a bit of a stretch. I finally concluded, "Hmm . . . maybe Mark did make a mistake."
Once I made the admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little picayune [very little importance] mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well…. This kind of realization coincided with the problems I was encountering the more closely I studied the surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It is one thing to say that the originals were inspired, but the reality is that we do not have the originals?so saying they were inspired does not help much unless I can reconstruct the originals.
Before looking at Ehrman's "fancy exegetical footwork" that he says 'took much work,' let us say that this Bible difficulty is solved with simple reasoning. Is it not true that if we referred to the Roman Emperor Tiberius before his becoming emperor, we would say Roman Emperor Tiberius? Why? Because it is a title and position, he is known for throughout history. This would hold with Abiathar as well. Therefore, Mark's reference to Abiathar as a high priest is simply a reference to his position in history. Mark 2:26 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar, the high priest, and ate the loaves of presentation, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?"
The Greek structure of Mark 2:26 is similar to that of Mark 12:26 . It has been used by the translations below in their rendering of 2:26. This is perfectly acceptable, and there was no need for any "fancy exegetical footwork." The only exegetical footwork I see is Ehrman's attempt to exaggerate a minor Bible difficulty and not give the complete picture.
One must remember that original readers did not need to go to the length we do today. It was written to them in their language and their historical setting. We are 2,000 years removed and in a modern era that can hardly relate to them. Therefore, in translation and exegesis, there is work to be done. However, any beginning Bible student with the reference works could have resolved this Bible difficulty in minutes. Any churchgoer with the Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman L. Geisler or the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer could have found a reasonable answer the moment they opened the book. Indeed, these books did not exist in the days Ehrman was at Princeton, but he did study under one of the most significant Greek and textual scholars of the 20th century, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger. Why Ehrman struggled so when he had three years at Moody Bible Institute and two years at Wheaton College is beyond this writer.
If you look at Jesus' words: "He [David] entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar, the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence;" Jesus did not state that Abiathar was the high priest at the time of this incident, only "in the time of . . ." Contextually, Abiathar is present when the event took place. Moreover, in the story, just after the murder of his father and would be a high priest, a position and title of which one would refer to him after that, even in discussing events before he received that position. This is just a loose citation of Scripture. Today, we do it all the time. Therefore, it was in the time of Abiathar, but not during the time he occupied the chief priest position. 1 Sam 22:9-12, 18; 23:6; 1 Sam 21:1-6; 22:18-19.
This is the argument that Ehrman had given to his professor, Cullen Story, which is a reasonable argument. Here are Ehrman's own words:
In my paper for Professor Story, I developed a long and complicated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened "when Abiathar was the high priest," it does not mean that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main characters. My argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words involved and was convoluted. Misquoting Jesus (p. 9)
Ehrman believes that his argument to Professor Story was a "long and complicated argument." I do not personally see mine as "long and complicated" nor "convoluted." Ehrman says that his argument was also "convoluted," which means it was too complex or intricate to understand easily. I made the same argument in one page of typed text and wrote on a level that could be easily understood. Sadly, it gets even worse for Ehrman and his case because he expresses himself in the same way that Jesus did, which is a common way of expressing things. Look at page 9, the same page of his complaint. You will find Ehrman saying: Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that "Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath" and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple "when Abiathar was the high priest" and ate the showbread, which was only for the priests to eat. Misquoting Jesus (p. 9)
First, David was not king at the time of Ehrman's reference. Second, there was no Temple at the time. It was the Tabernacle. This is just Ehrman's loose reference to Scripture as he refers to the person and place involved. We know David as King David, so we are not befuddled by his loose reference and recognize this is a way of referencing things. He also knows we think of it as a Temple, not the Tabernacle; we generally think of the Tabernacle being associated with Moses.
Moreover, David's son, Solomon, would eventually build the Temple. Here you have a world-renowned Bible scholar who uses a loose reference in his book and expects his audience to understand what he means by wording things. Was Ehrman technically chronologically wrong? Yes, in the strictest sense of things, if one wishes to be unreasonable. However, if we recognize this is an acceptable way of human expression, he is not wrong because he knows his audience will understand his loose reference, and so it goes with Jesus. If only Ehrman were as reasonable as Mark, who recorded Jesus' words.
