Mark 2:26 - Printer Friendly

ESV: 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?"

NIV: In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

NASB: how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?'

CSB: how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest and ate the bread of the Presence —which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests —and also gave some to his companions?"

NLT: He went into the house of God (during the days when Abiathar was high priest) and broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. He also gave some to his companions.'

KJV: How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

NKJV: 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?”

In 1 Samuel 21:1–9, David lies to the priest, saying he is on a special mission, commissioned by King Saul, and has had no time to gather food for himself and his men. David requests "five loaves of bread, or whatever is here." The priest has only showbread, which is to always be on display in the temple and meant to be eaten only by the priests (Leviticus 24:8–9). At David's urging, the priest is willing to give this bread to the men provided they are ceremonially pure, sexually. David assures the priest they are, and the priest gives them the holy bread. Throughout the history of Judaism, David has never been accused of a crime for this act, and the Pharisees continue the tradition.

However, they are willing to accuse Jesus' disciples for "working" by picking and eating grain on the Sabbath. Jesus' response here is meant to point out this hypocrisy. If an exception to the literal letters of the law can be made, for David, and in such a blatant case, isn't that proof of a greater purpose to the Law?

There are several theories offered as to why traditionalists like the Pharisees did not accuse David of sinning in this situation:

David is God's anointed king, even if he's not the current legal king, therefore the priest has an obligation to serve him. In other words, David has "special permission" to eat the bread.
David is a priest in the order of Melchizedek (see 2 Samuel 8:18; 24:18–25), and therefore qualified to eat the bread, though this doesn't justify his men.
The bread is old and stale, and the priest is free to do as he wishes with it.
David and his men are sexually pure, and therefore qualified to eat the bread.

None of these are supported by the text, and most are directly contradicted by the established rules regarding the bread. In fact, the regulations around the bread are fairly simple, and quite clear. It is for the priests, and the priests alone, and only for a specific place and time. Any priest speaking with David would have known this. What's more likely is that the priest, by giving David the bread, and David, by giving the bread to his men, both acknowledged a "higher law" at work. In that case, that the command to have mercy on the needy supersedes the purely ceremonial law limiting who can eat the bread.

The Mosaic Law includes several passages which express how to take care of the hungry and poor. While not explicitly stated, implicitly woven into the Law is the idea that feeding the hungry is a God-given priority. The priest, in the incident with David, ensured that the men were morally and ceremonially clean, and fulfills his moral obligation to see to their needs.

Mark's account includes one difference from the story in 1 Samuel. Mark names the priest as Abiathar. First Samuel says it was Ahimelech, Abiathar's father. There are several theories to reconcile this. It could be that Ahimelech was elderly, and Abiathar co-served as high priest with his father. Or that Jesus meant "in the time of Abiathar." Or possibly that Jesus didn't mean the "High Priest" as the official position, but a great priest, as one of the higher-ranked priests at that time.

Mark 2:23–28 demonstrates how, the more Jesus shows His authority, the more the Pharisees resent Him and take notice of His unorthodox ways. Here, as Jesus' disciples break the Sabbath, is the first time the Pharisees directly confront Him. The Law's Sabbath-day restrictions were preparing food (Exodus 16:23–26), working (Exodus 20:8-11; 31:12–17), kindling a fire (Exodus 35:3), farming (Leviticus 25:1–7), and carrying a burden (Jeremiah 17:19–22). But priests (Numbers 28:9–10; Matthew 12:5) and guards (2 Kings 11:4–9; Nehemiah 13:15–22) still worked. Rather than arguing whether the disciples broke the letter of the Mosaic Law, Jesus argues that it's all moot: He is the Lord of the Sabbath. This story is also found in Matthew 12:1–8 and Luke 6:1–5.

In Mark chapter 1, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist then led into the wilderness by the Holy Spirit where He was tempted by Satan. He also taught and healed in Capernaum and throughout Galilee. In chapter 2, having returned to Capernaum, Jesus displays authority over four particular areas: the forgiveness of sins, social traditions, extra-biblical religious traditions, and the Sabbath. In response, the Pharisees—legalistic religious leaders—escalate their antagonism toward Him, culminating in a direct condemnation of His teachings. This sets the scene for Mark 3:6 when the religious and national leadership first get the idea to destroy Jesus.