Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 2:26
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?
26. Abiathar ] In 2Sa 8:17, and the parallel passage 1Ch 18:16, we find Ahimelech substituted for Abiathar; while in 2Sa 20:25, and every other passage of the O. T., we are told it was Abiathar who was priest with Zadok in David’s reign, and that he was the son of Ahimelech. Some therefore suppose that there is a clerical error here in the MSS. Others think that the loaves of shewbread belonged to Abiathar, at this time a priest (Lev 24:9), that he persuaded his father to let David have them, and gave them to him with his own hand.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 26. The days of Abiathar the high priest] It appears from 1Sa 21:1, which is the place referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob: and from 1Sa 22:20; 1Sa 23:6, and 1Ch 18:16, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. The Persic reads Abimelech instead of Abiathar. Theophylact supposes that Abiathar was the priest, and Ahimelech or Abimelech the high priest, and thus endeavours to reconcile both the sacred historians. Others reconcile the accounts thus: Ahimelech was called Ahimelech Abiathar, ab, father, understood; and Abiathar was called Abiathar Ahimelech, ben, son, understood. Probably they both officiated in the high priesthood; and the name of the office was indifferently applied to either.
Shew-bread] See Mt 12:4.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
How he went into the house of God,…. The tabernacle; for the temple was not yet built: thither David went to get bread for himself and his men, being hungry: so in a spiritual sense, where should such go, who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but into the house of God? Here is bread enough, and to spare; here is a table furnished with excellent provisions; here the Gospel is dispensed, which is milk for babes, and meat for strong men; here Christ, the bread of life, is set forth, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed; here the ordinances are administered, which are breasts of consolation to the children of God; here is a feast of fat things, all things are ready, and souls are welcome, and therefore it must be right to attend here. And this was on the sabbath day that David went into the house of God: when the showbread loaves were removed, and divided, among the priests, and new ones were placed in their room: and so under the Gospel dispensation, on the Lord’s day, the day set apart for public worship, it becomes the saints to go up to the house of the Lord, and feed upon the provisions of it: they are a royal priesthood, they are priests, as well as kings to God; and their business is in the house of the Lord, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to him; and as the goodness and fulness of his house appertains to them, they do well to attend and partake thereof.
In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges k Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, “under Abimelech the high priest”; and in an ancient copy of Beza’s, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle may be so rendered, about, or “before Abiathar was high priest”, as it is in Mt 1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews l themselves give,
“the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, , “lo! he is called an high priest”.”
So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call m Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father’s days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2Sa 8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1Ch 18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki 1:25. And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, “it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest”: for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.
And did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? Who not only ate the showbread, which was set before the Lord, and was sacred, and which none but the priests might eat of, after it was removed from the table; but he did this on the sabbath day; and he not only eat of it himself, but the soldiers that were with him: and all this with the knowledge and leave of the high priest: for the Jews n have no reason to charge this evangelist and the others with an error, that others besides David ate of the showbread, urging that he came alone to Ahimelech; since it is evident from 1Sa 21:2,
that David had servants in company with him when he fled, though they did not attend him when he went to the high priest; and that he asked bread, and it was given him, not only for himself, but for the young men that he had appointed to be at such a place: and therefore, if this was allowed to David and his men, when hungry, it ought not to be charged as an evil upon the disciples, for plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger, though on a sabbath day; and especially when he, who was Lord of the sabbath, was present, and admitted of it; [See comments on Mt 12:4].
k R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 9. c. 28. p. 419. l Siphra, fol. 17. 2. apud Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messiah, par. 2. p. 73. m Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 16. 2. n R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 28. p. 420. Jacob Aben Amrara apud Kidder, Demonstr. of the Messiah, par. 3. p. 48.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The house of God ( ). The tent or tabernacle at Nob, not the temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon.
When Abiathar was high priest ( ). Neat Greek idiom, in the time of Abiathar as high priest. There was confusion in the Massoretic text and in the LXX about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar (2Sa 8:17), Ahimelech’s son and successor (1Sam 21:2; 1Sam 22:20). Apparently Ahimelech, not Abiathar was high priest at this time. It is possible that both father and son bore both names (1Sam 22:20; 2Sam 8:17; 1Chr 18:16), Abiathar mentioned though both involved. may so mean in the passage about Abiathar. Or we may leave it unexplained. They had the most elaborate rules for the preparation of the shewbread ( ), the loaves of presentation, the loaves of the face or presence of God. It was renewed on the commencement of the sabbath and the old bread deposited on the golden table in the porch of the Sanctuary. This old bread was eaten by the priests as they came and went. This is what David ate.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The shewbread [ ] . Lit., the loaves of proposition, i e., the loaves which were set forth before the Lord. The Jews called them the loaves of the face, i e., of the presence of God. The bread was made of the finest wheaten flour that had been passed through eleven sieves. There were twelve loaves, or cakes, according to the number of tribes, ranged in two piles of six each. Each cake was made of about five pints of wheat. They were anointed in the middle with oil, in the form of a cross. According to tradition, each cake was five hand – breadths broad and ten long, but turned up at either end, two hand – breadths on each side, to resemble in outline the ark of the covenant. The shewbread was prepared on Friday, unless that day happened to be a feast – day that required sabbatical rest; in which case it was prepared on Thursday afternoon. The renewal of the shewbread was the first of the priestly functions on the commencement of the Sabbath. The bread which was taken off was deposited on the golden table in the porch of the sanctuary, and distributed among the outgoing and incoming courses of priests (compare save for the priests). It was eaten during the Sabbath, and in the temple itself, but only by such priests as were Levitically pure. This old bread, removed on the Sabbath morning, was that which David ate.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1)”How he went into the house of God,”(poseiselt eis ton oikon tou theou) “How that he, David, entered the house of God,” into God’s sanctuary, holy place
2) “In the days of Abiathar the high priest,” (epi Abiathar archiereos) “in the times of Abiathar the high priest,” of Israel’s Tabernacle worship; This Abiathar seems to have been also known as Ahimilech, the son and assistant to his father, Abiathar the high priest, 1Sa 21:2; 2Sa 8:17; 2Ch 18:16.
3) “And did eat the shewbread,” (kai tous artous tes protheseos ephagen) “And ate the loaves of the setting forth,” the shewbread that was continually set forth in the house of God.
4) “Which is not lawful to eat but for the priests,” (ous ouk eksestin phagein ei me tous hiereis) “Which it is unlawful for anyone to eat, except the priests,” as prescribed in and by Moses’ Law, Exo 25:30; Lev 24:5-9.
5) ”And gave also to them which were with him?” (kai edoken kai tois sun autoousin) “And he also gave to those who were in close colleague with him?” Have you all never read this? The eating of the shewbread was a type of Christ, the Bread of Life for every believer, not just the high priest or ministry only, Joh 6:33-38. He is that manna that came down from heaven, to sustain every believer, in his obedient path of service to Christ, through the wilderness journey of the church, to the hour of full deliverance,
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(26) In the days of Abiathar the high priest.St. Marks is the only record that gives the name of the high priest, and in so doing it creates an historical difficulty. In 1Sa. 21:1, Ahimelech is named as exercising the high priests office in the Tabernacle at Nob. He is slain by Doeg, at the command of Saul, and his son Abiathar joins David at the cave of Adullam (1Sa. 22:20), and continues to act as high priest till his deposition by Solomon (1Ki. 2:26). Two conjectural explanations suggest themselves as probable: (1) that St. Mark, or that our Lord, may have given the name of the more famous priest of the two, who, though not then high-priest, was at the Tabernacle at the time referred to; (2) that he might have acted then as a coadjutor to his father, as Elis sons seem to have done to him (1Sa. 4:4), and being, as his flight showed, of Davids party, was the chief agent in allowing him to take the shew-bread.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
26. In the days of Abiathar the high priest It appears by the account of the transaction here referred to in 1Sa 21:1, that Ahimelech, father of Abiathar, was the high priest who supplied David the showbread. His son Abiathar was then priest, and afterward high priest; and as such under David attained a celebrity in Jewish history. Jesus, therefore, specifies the time as being the period of Abiathar’s life and office, who afterward became high priest. It is by no means improbable, though there is no other proof than arises from this passage, that Abiathar may have been high priest with his father, as he was high priest a part of his life conjointly with Zadock. There would be no extraordinary error, however, in saying that the American Constitution was formed in the time of President Washington.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Mar 2:26. In the days of Abiathar In the history, the priest from whom David received the shew-bread is called Ahimelech; and it is generally agreed that he was the high-priest, because Doeg accused him of inquiring of the Lord for David, (1Sa 22:10.) a thing which none but the priest, having on him the ephod, could do. If that be true, Ahimelech must have been the high-priest, becausehe himself confessed that he had often inquired of the Lord formerly without blame, Mar 2:15 accordingly Josephus calls him the high priest several times. But to make this matter easy, Hammond supposes that the phrase here used, should be translated, before the day of Abiathar, as , Mat 1:11 seems to signify before the captivity. Lightfoot thinks it should be translated, In the days of Abiathar, the son of the high-priest, as signifies the son of Eli, Luk 3:23. Whitby is of opinion, that , in this passage, signifies a chief-priest, an eminent man of the order; which sense, it must be acknowledged, the word has often in Scripture. Grotius supposes that Abiathar, being a more celebrated person than his father, is mentioned rather than him. Possibly Abiathar was present when David came, whose request he might advise his father to grant: if so, it was abundantly proper to mention him in this affair. He is called Abiathar the high-priest, although when David applied to him he did not possess that dignity,it being common to denominate people in every part of their life, by such eminent offices as they have held in any part thereof. Perhaps it may illustrate the matter to observe, that Ahimelech,the father of Abiathar, was not slain with the priests of Nob: for though Saul threatened him and all his father’s house with death, (1Sa 22:16.) it is not said that he was killed. We are onlytold that Doeg fell upon the priests, and slew fourscore and five of them. Besides, had Ahimelech been slain, the high-priesthood would have been taken from his family, which it was not; for Solomon’s deposition of Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, is declared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli. Till this period, therefore, Eli’s descendants enjoyed the high-priesthood. But, what puts the matter beyond doubt, Ahimelech is said to have been high-priest in David’s reign; 1Ch 18:16 where he is called the son of Abiathar, who was high-priest, being alive when David received the shew-bread. So our Lord says expressly. Probably, being old, he was incapable of officiating, which was the reason that his eldest son Ahimelech supplied his place, and inquired of the Lord for David. It is true, in the history of this affair, Ahimelech is called the son of Ahitub, (1Sa 22:20.) but everywhere else he is called the son of Abiathar. Most probably, Ahimelech’s father had two names, which was no uncommon thing in those days. Respecting the shew-bread, &c. See the notes on Exo 25:23-30.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
26 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?
Ver. 26. And to them that, &c. ] Though meaner men than David.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
26. . .] during the high-priesthood of Abiathar. But in 1Sa 21 , from which this account is taken, Ahimelech, not Abiathar , is the high-priest. There is however considerable confusion in the names about this part of the history: Ahimelech himself is called Ahiah , 1Sa 14:3 ; and whereas ( 1Sa 22:20 ) Ahimelech has a son Abiathar , in 2Sa 8:17 , Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar , and in 1Ch 18:16 , Abimelech . Amidst this variation, we can hardly undertake to explain the difficulty in the text. The insertion of the art. before . has been apparently done to give the words the sense ‘In the time of Abiathar the High-priest,’ so that the difficulty might be avoided by understanding the event to have happened in the time of (but not necessarily during the high-priesthood of) Abiathar (who was afterwards) the High-priest. But supposing the reading to be so, what author would in an ordinary narrative think of designating an event thus? Who for instance would speak of the defeat of the Philistines at Ephesdammim, where Goliath fell, as happening ? Who would ever understand , ‘in the time of Elisus the prophet,’ as importing, in matter of fact, any other period than that of the prophetic course of Elisha? (The of Mat 1:6 is not a case in point.) Yet this is the way in which the difficulties of the Gospels have been attempted to be healed over. (See Middleton on the article, in loc.) With the restoration of the true reading, even this resource fails. (I am sorry to see that Bp. Wordsw. writes, “ intimates indeed that it was in the days of Abiathar, but it rather suggests that he was not the High-priest then:” comparing , Luk 3:2 . But surely Bp. W. must know, that such a rendering is ungrammatical: that without the article must be simply predicatory, whether it precedes or follows the proper name; “when Abiathar was High-priest,” and cannot be titular. The expression in 1Ma 13:42 , which he quotes as similar, is not a case in point, as any reader may judge: . : the epithet makes all the difference.)
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mar 2:26 . .: under A., a note of time, also implying his sanction: the sanction of a distinguished sacerdotal character = of Abiathar as priest . But Ahimelech was the priest then (1Sa 21:2 f.). Either a natural error arising from the close connection of David with Abiathar, the well-known high priest, or we must adopt one or other of the solutions proposed: father and son, Ahimelech and Abiathar, both bore both names (1Sa 22:20 , 2Sa 8:17 , 1Ch 18:16 ) so the Fathers; Abiathar, the son, Ahimelech’s assistant at the time, and mentioned as the more notable as approving of the conduct of his own father and of David (Grotius); taken in the sense it bears in Mar 12:26 ( ) in the passage about Abiathar not a satisfactory suggestion.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
in the days of. Greek. epi. App-104.
Abiathar. Called Ahimelech in 1Sa 21:1; 1Sa 22:9, 1Sa 22:11, 1Sa 22:20; and Ahiah in 1Sa 14:3. The father and his son Ahiathar must have had two names, as was frequently the case. And why left, as in our own day? In 2Sa 8:17, and 1Ch 18:16, we have Ahimelech the son of Abiathar; and in 1Sa 22:20 Abiathar the son of Abimelech (who was the son of Ahitub). There is no “confusion in the Hebrew text”. The Lord’s enemies are the best witnesses of this, for they would not have missed such an opportunity of effective reply (See Mar 3:8). They knew what moderncritics do not know.
the shewbread. Reference to Pentateuch (Exo 25:30; Exo 35:13; Exo 39:36. Lev 24:5-9). Compare 2Ch 13:11. See App-92 and App-117.
but = except. To eat this was the priest’s first duty on the Sabbath,
gave also = gave to them also.
with. Greek. sun. App-104.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
26. . .] during the high-priesthood of Abiathar. But in 1 Samuel 21, from which this account is taken, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, is the high-priest. There is however considerable confusion in the names about this part of the history: Ahimelech himself is called Ahiah, 1Sa 14:3; and whereas (1Sa 22:20) Ahimelech has a son Abiathar, in 2Sa 8:17, Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar, and in 1Ch 18:16, Abimelech. Amidst this variation, we can hardly undertake to explain the difficulty in the text. The insertion of the art. before . has been apparently done to give the words the sense In the time of Abiathar the High-priest, so that the difficulty might be avoided by understanding the event to have happened in the time of (but not necessarily during the high-priesthood of) Abiathar (who was afterwards) the High-priest. But supposing the reading to be so, what author would in an ordinary narrative think of designating an event thus? Who for instance would speak of the defeat of the Philistines at Ephesdammim, where Goliath fell, as happening ? Who would ever understand , in the time of Elisus the prophet, as importing, in matter of fact, any other period than that of the prophetic course of Elisha? (The of Mat 1:6 is not a case in point.) Yet this is the way in which the difficulties of the Gospels have been attempted to be healed over. (See Middleton on the article, in loc.) With the restoration of the true reading, even this resource fails. (I am sorry to see that Bp. Wordsw. writes, intimates indeed that it was in the days of Abiathar, but it rather suggests that he was not the High-priest then: comparing , Luk 3:2. But surely Bp. W. must know, that such a rendering is ungrammatical: that without the article must be simply predicatory, whether it precedes or follows the proper name; when Abiathar was High-priest,-and cannot be titular. The expression in 1Ma 13:42, which he quotes as similar, is not a case in point, as any reader may judge: . : the epithet makes all the difference.)
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mar 2:26. , , under Abiathar) Ahimelech was the priest who gave loaves of bread to David; but on his being put to death for that very act, his son Abiathar presently after succeeded to him; and afterwards the priesthood of Abiathar and the reign of David were contemporary. The series of the priests was very well known among the Hebrews, and so the denomination of [the mode of marking] the age of David is taken from the priest of that day; and indeed the Evangelist mentions Abiathar, in whose time the actions of David seem to have been entered in the sacred records, in preference to Ahimelech; comp. the use of , Mat 1:11. Not unlike is the phraseology, Gen 2:2, on the seventh day [God ended His work; we should have said, at the close of the sixth day], and ch. Mar 10:25, in the days of peleg (who was born a short while after) the earth was divided.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Mar 2:26-28
Commentary On Mar 2:26-28
J.W. McGarvey
Mar 2:26. of Abiathar.-The reader will observe that the critics correct the reading of the common version here, giving us “in the high-priesthood of Abiathar,” instead of “in the days of Abiathar.”
This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in 1Sa 21:1-6, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (1Sa 22:18-20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the New Testament, for in 2Sa 8:17, and 1Ch 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the Old Testament, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. For other opinions on the subject, see the note on this verse in Lange.
Mar 2:27-28. sabbath was made for man.-These verses contain an argument not reported by either Matthew or Luke. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the latter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this is known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath; “that is, as the Son of man came to provide for man’s welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that men might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man’s welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day.
For comments on other parts of this paragraph, see the notes on Mat 12:1-8.
Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark Chapter Two
1. To what city did Jesus again go?
2. Who were attracted to the house?
3. What did Jesus do for them?
4. Tell whom they brought to him.
5. How did they get to him?
6. What did this indicate to Jesus?
7. To which of the five did he speak?
8. Repeat his words.
9. Who were sitting in the crowd ?
10. State their reasoning.
11. Was it done orally?
12. Who perceived it?
13. State his question to the scribes.
14. Which of these works would be the harder?
15. Which would be visible?
16. State which would prove the other.
17. What then was done?
18. How were the people impressed ?
19. Where did Jesus next go?
20. Was he left alone ?
21. What did he do for the people?
22. On the way whom did he see ?
23. State this mans occupation.
24. What did Jesus have him do ?
25. With whom did Jesus and his disciples eat?
26. Tell who criticized this.
27. What subject did Jesus use in reply?
28. Tell what sick people need.
29. For what did Jesus come?
30. Who had disciples beside Jesus?
31. State one of their customs.
32. What did they ask Jesus?
33. In the answer, who is the bridegroom?
34. What is predicted of this bridegroom?
35. What’will be appropriate then?
36. How is appropriateness taught also by a garment
37. What other article is used for the lesson ?
38. Tell why not put new wine into old bottles.
39. Through what field did he pass?
40. On what day?
41. What did the disciples do ?
42. Was this lawful?
43. Who objected?
44. Did they accuse them of stealing?
45. What did they claim was unlawful ?
46. To whom did Jesus refer?
47. Who was Abiathar?
48. Why was Davids act not sinful?
49. What about the sabbath and man?
50. Also the Son of man and the sabbath?
Mark Chapter Two
By Ralph L. Starling
In Capernaum an interesting thing happened.
A man came to Jesus sick with the palsy.
He couldnt reach Jesus because of the crowd,
So they opened the roof and let the man down.
Jesus saw their faith and healed him immediately.
The Scribes said He was guilty of blasphemy.
Jesus countered, Is it easier to say youre forgiven,
Or take up your bed and walk even?
As Jesus was walking by the wayside
He saw a Tax Collector called Levi.
Levi left his seat of collecting customs
For a work with which he was unaccustomed.
Later, Christ was sitting with Publicans and Sinners,
When they questioned Him about why so many?
He replied, Those that are well need not a physician.
I came to call sinners needing repentance.
On a Sabbath Day they saw Him picking corn.
He should know thats unlawful from the day he was born.
He replied, The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Furthermore, the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
shewbread
(See Scofield “Exo 25:30”)
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Abiathar: It appears from the passage referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob; and from other passages, that Abiathar was his son. Various conjectures have been formed in order to solve this difficulty; and some, instead of untying, have cut the knot, by pronouncing it an interpolation. The most probable opinion seems to be, that both father and son had two names, the father being also called Abiathar; and this appears almost certain from 2Sa 8:17, 1Ch 18:16, where Ahimelech seems evidently termed Abiathar, while Abiathar is called Ahimelech or Abimelech. – Compare 1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27.1Sa 22:20-22, 1Sa 23:6, 1Sa 23:9, 2Sa 8:17, 2Sa 15:24, 2Sa 15:29, 2Sa 15:35, 2Sa 20:25, 1Ki 1:7, 1Ki 2:22, 1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27, 1Ki 4:4
which is not lawful: Exo 29:32, Exo 29:33, Lev 24:5-9
Reciprocal: Lev 24:9 – Aaron’s 1Sa 21:1 – to Ahimelech 1Sa 30:7 – Abiathar Mat 12:3 – what Luk 6:3 – what
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
The bread that David ate was that which had been on the table in the tabernacle for seven days, then was set back for the use of the priests. But it had served its religious purpose and therefore it was no desecration of it for David to eat it, especially as it was an emergency.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
[In the days of Abiathar the high priest.] It is well enough known what is here said in defence of the purity of the text; namely, that Ahimelech the father was called Abiathar; and Abiathar the son was called also Ahimelech. But I suppose that something more was propounded by our Saviour in these words. For it was common to the Jews under Abiathar to understand the Urim and Thummim. Nor without good reason, when it appears, that under the father and the son, both of that name, the mention of inquiring by Urim and Thummim is more frequent than it is ever anywhere else; and, after Abiathar the son, there is scarcely mention of it at all. Christ therefore very properly adds, in the days of Abiathar the high priest; therein speaking according to a very received opinion in the nation: as though he had said, “David ate the shewbread given him by the high priest, who had the oracle by Urim and thummim present with him, and who acted by the divine direction.”
“Ahitophel, that is, a counsellor, Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, that is, the Sanhedrim; Abiathar, that is, Urim and Thummim.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mar 2:26. When Abiathar was high-priest. The argument is the same as in Mat 12:3-4. The name here introduced occasions some difficulty. According to 1 Samuel 21 Ahimelech was the high-priest who gave David the hallowed bread. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech (1Sa 22:20) and the friend of David. He afterwards became high-priest, being the only one of his fathers family who escaped from the anger of Saul. Some have therefore supposed that the title high-priest is given to him, because he afterwards held the office. But the original (according to the correct reading) is almost equivalent to: during the high-priesthood of Abiathar. Probably both father and son had the two names, Ahimelech and Abiathar. In 2Sa 8:17, and 1Ch 24:6, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar is spoken of where the same father and son are undoubtedly referred to, since the time was during the reign of David, after the father had been killed by Doeg (1 Samuel 22). In 1Sa 14:3, the father is called Ahiah (the son of Ahitub); in 1Ch 18:16, the son is called, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar. The father was certainly called Abiathar, and, as actual high-priest, is here meant. This explanation is the simplest.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 26
1 Samuel 21:2-6. It was in fact Ahimelech who gave David the bread. Saul afterwards slew him for this act, and then Abiathar, his son, succeeded him. Abiathar was more prominent as a public character, and thus his name is used to designate the historical period at which the event occurred.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of {i} 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?
(i) In 1Sa 21:1 he is called Ahimelech and his son is called Abiathar, but by conferring other places it is plain that both of them had two names; see 1Ch 24:6 2Sa 8:17 2Sa 15:29 1Ki 2:26 2Ki 25:18 .