Mark 2:26Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Alternatively, one might explain that the account in Kings references the priest Ahimelech, while the Evangelist is mentioning Abiathar, who was the archbishop at that time, indicating that there is no contradiction between their accounts. Thus, during that period, Ahimelech served as the priest, whereas Abiathar held the office of bishop.

In response to criticism from the Pharisees, who closely monitored His actions, the Lord cited examples from Scripture where holy individuals had transgressed certain regulations of the law due to necessity. He referred to the instance of David, who, while fleeing from Saul, requested the showbread from Abiathar and consumed it with his followers (1 Sam. 21:1). He also highlighted how the Pharisees themselves would violate the Sabbath by rescuing animals that had fallen into a pit, noting that even the priests were not able to adhere strictly to the rest commandment because they performed sacrifices. Yet, the Lord proclaimed that something greater than the temple was present. Thus, the disciples, by following this greater command, did not contravene the temple, which is the temporal dwelling of God and His laws that are of limited duration. Furthermore, the Lord reminded them of God’s message from the prophet: I desire mercy and not sacrifice. The act of showing compassion to the man with the withered hand takes precedence over merely observing a day of rest; we must recognize that the Sabbath was made for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath. The Sabbath, like every other time, is meant for performing good deeds, not for doing harm, and neglecting to act for the benefit of another is similarly counted as wrongdoing. Ultimately, the Lord reiterated His earlier teaching in Jerusalem that the Son of Man is also the Lord of the Sabbath.

The First Book of Kings recounts that David, while fleeing from Saul, approached the priest Ahimelech at Nob, seeking sustenance for himself and his men. As the priest had no ordinary bread available, he provided David with the showbread. The Gospel writer Mark refers to Abiathar as the high priest during this incident, though Kings names Ahimelech. This discrepancy arises because Abiathar was the son and successor of Ahimelech and served alongside him in the priestly functions. Following his father’s death, Abiathar became the high priest during David’s reign, leading to a common association of his name with David's time. Regardless, it is historically acknowledged that David was allowed to enter the house of the Lord under Abiathar's authority to eat the showbread.

If the high priest's decision to permit David to consume the sacred bread was justified by David's hunger, suggesting that acts of compassion can supersede strict legal observance—as mercy is greater than sacrifice—then the disciples of Jesus, by satisfying their own hunger with grains taken from the fields, could similarly be excused from the Pharisaic interpretation of Sabbath rest.

Concerning the mention of "under the high priest Abiathar,” it is noted in 1 Samuel 21:1 that the high priest during that period was actually Abimelech. However, Abiathar was Abimelech's son (1 Samuel 23:6) who later succeeded him in the priestly office as per the stipulations of the law. To clarify this, some have suggested (Euth. Zigab.) that both father and son were known by these names, as indicated in 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 24:6, 31, where Abimelech is referred to as Abiathar’s son.

It seems more plausible that Mark utilized the name Abiathar rather than that of his father because the son held greater prominence and affection in the hearts of the Jewish people than the father did, suggesting that there wasn't a true chronological discrepancy. The son of the high priest was indeed his rightful successor and aided his father in fulfilling his responsibilities to the best of his ability. Consequently, it is not unusual that the people may have referred to him with the title of high priest even while his father was still living, a position he was destined to inherit.

Additionally, Abiathar distanced himself from Saul's faction, which persecuted David, and allied with David, bringing along the ephod, an important element of the high priest’s garments. He served as high priest for an extended period during King David’s reign, making it reasonable that when recounting narratives about David, it was Abiathar rather than Abimelech who would be remembered and associated with him.

Nonetheless, it remains historically valid that the events described occurred during the tenure of Abiathar, who later became high priest under King David.

Within the Tabernacle, on a designated table, the priests placed twelve clean loaves of wheat, known as the bread of the Presence, as prescribed in the Law of Moses (Leviticus 24:5-9), and these were replaced weekly. In his time of distress during Saul’s persecution, David arrived at Nob, where the Tabernacle was located, and, with the permission of Ahimelech, the high priest, he took these sacred loaves to alleviate his hunger (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Though David did not technically breach the Sabbath, he acted out of necessity and transgressed the law; yet he was not condemned for his actions. St. John Chrysostom explains, “The Lord defended His disciples against the Pharisees by showcasing a prophet greater than they, who had committed a similar act.” The Evangelist Mark's reference to Abiathar, instead of Ahimelech, (1 Kings 23:6) can be understood as the son, as the rightful successor to his father's title, still bearing the high priest's name while his father lived. Regarding the Sabbath, Jesus continued, “Have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple violate the Sabbath yet remain blameless?” But I tell you, this is no longer a temple. While the law prohibited kindling fire in homes on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3), it simultaneously mandated additional offerings of two lambs along with the daily sacrifices (Numbers 28:9). In performing these duties, the priests had to slaughter, skin, cut, and burn the sacrificial offerings—actions seemingly incompatible with Sabbath rest, yet not held against them since they were conducted within the tabernacle and temple by divine command. “For the same reason, He justifies the priests and exonerates His disciples; if the priests are not guilty, how much more so are the disciples? Are they not priests as well? And they are even greater than the priests, for here is the Lord of the sanctuary Himself,” as noted by St. John Chrysostom.