|
HOUSMAIL HM111 11
September 2003 DID JESUS GET
IT WRONG? The
Jews accused the disciples of breaking the law, when passing through the fields
one Sabbath day, they casually plucked and ate some heads of grain. (Matthew 12:1-8, Our
problem is that in Mark, Jesus says that the incident occurred "in
the days of Abiathar the High Priest". Ahimelech is not mentioned.
(Matthew and Luke do not name a Priest at all.) However the Old Testament source
says that it was Ahimelech who gave the bread to David! And Abiathar
is identified as Ahimelech's son. Jewish
Anti-Missionaries seize on this as an example of CONTRADICTION, which they claim
should be regarded as invalidating the New Testament. And they allege that if
Jesus could make such an obvious mistake, then He could NOT be the Messiah! So how do we reconcile this "discrepancy"? BACKGROUND The
role of priesthood and High priest was reserved for Aaron and his sons and their
descendants as a "perpetual priesthood". (Exodus 40:12-15) The
"bread of the Presence" which David ate was the "consecrated bread",
which was kept at the door of the Tabernacle (Exodus
29:32 RSV) and was legally reserved to be eaten only
by priests. (Exodus 29:33-34) It
was to be made fresh daily. Any left over to the next morning was to be burned.
On the face of it, it was completely illegal for Ahimelech to give it to David! From
later genealogies (1 Chronicles 6) we learn that Ahitub, the father of Ahimelech, and grandfather of
Abiathar, was a direct descendant in the blood line of Aaron and his son Eleazar.
From this we can be certain beyond reasonable doubt, that Ahimelech the son of
Ahitub, and his son Abiathar, would have been the high priestly family of the
day. Not
much is known about the movements of the Tabernacle after the Israelites conquered
the land when it was set up at Shiloh. (Joshua 18:1) However, by the time of Saul, it appears to have been re-located
to Nob. This is not stated in so many words, but we may safely infer it from several
clues. e.g. One of the high priest's "badges of office", a garment which
was called the "ephod", was kept there. The "shewbread"
(Exodus 25:30) was
kept there. The priestly family resided there. When
Saul summoned Ahimelech and his family from Nob to Gibeah*, and then murdered them
for their assistance given to David, Abiathar alone escaped, with the ephod in
His possession. *Several
commentaries consulted differ about the precise locations of the two, but the
consensus indicates that they were a few hours walk apart. ABIATHAR'S
ESCAPE The
most likely reason for Abiathar's escape would have been the requirement of the
Law for some priests to remain "at home" to maintain a 24 hour a day
priestly presence in the Tabernacle. Despite Saul's demand for them to present
themselves, they could not all go and leave the Tabernacle unattended. Saul's
information from Doeg named Ahimelech as the one who had given David assistance.
So Saul's murderous rage was directed principally at Ahimelech. It was "Ahimelech
and his father's house" who were required to present themselves to Saul.
But it would have been understood, even by Saul, that the law required that the
Tabernacle could not be left without any priests at all, to attend to the constant
ritual. It is more than reasonable to conclude that this number must have included
Abiathar -- especially if, as suggested below, he (not Ahimelech) was already
officiating in the role of High Priest. Farfetched?
Not at all! When Abiathar fled to David after the murder of the other priests,
he took an ephod with him. (1 Samuel 23:6) Of course all priests wore an "ordinary" linen ephod.
However, from the way it is mentioned and later used, it seems that David regarded
Abiathar's ephod as the special High Priest's garment. (1 Samuel 23:9). If Ahimelech was still
occupying the office of High Priest, why was he not wearing this special robe
when he was summoned to go to Saul? (or at least carrying it with him?) Why did
Abiathar have it? We suggest here that most likely, it was because he was probably
wearing it in his official duties, back at the Tabernacle, when his father and
the 84 other priests were murdered by Saul! Could Abiathar BE High Priest WHILE HIS FATHER WAS STILL ALIVE? Yes
it would be quite possible! In fact there were several provisions in the Law of
Moses, which could have made it a legal necessity! e.g. Ahimelech might have become
aged, and too frail for some of the more physically and mentally demanding duties
of the High priest. Or he might have suffered some accident resulting in one or
other of the physical deformities which would have prevented him from entering
the Tabernacle itself. (Leviticus 21:17-23) However this would still have allowed him access to the outer area
where he could perform other duties, and eat the consecrated bread, or in this
case, give it to David. Of course,
these suggestions are "speculative" -- but the fact remains that if
for any reason Ahimelech had become incapable or disqualified, Abiathar would
have been the next in line to take over the duties. Whatever
the circumstances, we do know that Abiathar already had the custody of a High
Priest's Ephod when he fled to David. And this may well be the reason why Jesus
so positively and authoritatively identified him as THE High Priest at the time
of this incident. BOTH things could be true. Abiathar could have been High Priest
already -- but it was his father Ahimelech, who actually gave the bread to David. SPECULATION
OR FACT? Of course,
in the absence of totally positive Scripture this might well be dismissed by determined
unbelievers, as just one more of the several speculative solutions which have
been offered by Christian apologists from time to time. (Some of these are far
too "stretched" to rate a mention here. Others include such things as
"copyist errors".) However this one does fit the facts remarkably well.
It should not surprise us that Jesus chose to interpret them this way when He
identified Abiathar (not Ahimelech) as the High Priest at the time. Of course,
we are dealing in a realm where the Bible is (almost) silent. At the very best,
in the 21st century, any of these answers must remain in the realm of "informed
speculation". What
can be shown as fact, is that for those who search for God with all their heart,
(Jeremiah 29:13) the
claims of Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah are beyond dispute. Not the least of
these "proofs" is that He is risen from the dead and alive today,
seated in heaven at the right hand of God, just as the Old Testament prophecy
said. (Psalm 110:1) THAT
is demonstrated by God's countless answers to prayers made "in the name of
Jesus". For TRUE disciples THAT is a daily experience! If Jesus is not alive, then God's answers to those prayers would
be a lie! CONCLUSION Jews
and Christians alike should know that a sheep can be lifted from a ditch on the
Sabbath, to alleviate animal suffering, (Matthew 12:11) and that the same applies to healing suffering humans on the Sabbath!
And those who know that food already prepared in advance, can be eaten on the
Sabbath without breaking the law, (Exodus 16:22-30) will know also that there was in fact no breach of the Law by the
disciples in this incident! The priority of genuine human need overrides all such
"religious ritual laws"! More
to the point -- For those of us who already know beyond question,
that Jesus is risen from the dead, and therefore confirmed by God as the prophesied
Messiah, (Romans 1:3-6) it
is much more reasonable to assume that He got it right, than to
receive ill-informed accusations from unbelieving Jewish Anti-Missionaries, that
He was so seriously mistaken about the facts! Allon |