Tackling Tradition 20: Abiathar or Ahimelech?

 I agree with Steve Hays,

Atheists contend that Christians are guilty of special pleading when they interpret the Bible to save face. However, none of my principles are distinctive to inerrancy. Rather, these pertain to hermeneutics in general. Many atheists (e.g. Bart Ehrman) are poor readers. Their approach represents a maladroit way to read historical narratives or law codes generally, whether inspired or uninspired. 

When we encounter difficulties in an uninspired text, we make allowance for error. That's the primary difference between the Christian interpretation of Scripture and uninspired writings. But even in the case of uninspired writers, there's no general presumption that the writer was mistaken. Sometimes he was. But sometimes the reader is mistaken. And that's more likely when we read ancient writings. 

One if Instagram’s Parade of Biblical Critics, Robert J. Rolle has demonstrated the truth of Steve’s words here.  

His objection is that since the text of Mark 2:26 refers to the High Priest Abiathar when referring to the narrative in 1 Samuel 21:1 (and 2 Samuel 8:17, & 1 Chronicles 24:6), the author is wrong, presenting us with a genuine contradiction in the Bible. 

By way of reply, that would only be the case if the author’s narrative intent necessarily entailed a woodenly literal 1:1 correspondence between the name of the high priest in David’s day within the narrative in the OT & the author’s own narrative intent in Mark.  

Let’s Luke at the text of Mark 2. 

Mark 2:13: He went out again beside the sea, and all the crowd was coming to him, and he was teaching them. 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.

Why start here?  The text of Mark 2 isn’t simply intended to be an attempt to articulate a biographical or semi-biographical narrative about Yeshua’s life & the events chronicled in this particular chapter.  The text, like all Scripture, is written in “Prophetspeak,” & authors who write in Prophetspeak, not infrequently either or knowingly or unknowingly write in a manner that might not always agree with their everyday mundane experience.  Put another way, sometimes Scripture is written with more content/meaning than the human author might have realized at the time of writing.  

This might even mean that if we asked a writer what he believed about a particular subject he addressed in his body of work, he might profess to believing something his body of work doesn’t support.  For example, I think it’s extraordinarily likely that Paul, in practice, agreed with what we today think of as the tradition-bound view on homosexuality.  However, as we saw last year when we addressed the meaning of Romans 1:18 - 32, Paul’s written words don’t agree with his personal point of view (assuming he would tell us in an interview that he agrees with the tradition-bound view).    That sort of phenomenon is exactly what we would expect if the text of Romans 1:18 - 32  is inspired.  Prophetspeak will do that to you, proving the truth set down in Hebrews 4: 

Hebrews 4: 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The text of Mark isn’t just an attempt to write a biographical or semi-biographical account of Yeshua’s life.  It’s also written as a series of teaching modules, some of which are stageable in a group setting.  

The text only makes it seem like the author was mistaken, but that requires him (or them) to be careless & ignorant.  In truth they knew what they were doing. 

Who is the author? The individual credited as its author is John Mark, who happens to be John, the author of the 4th Gospel, a close associate of Paul, Silas, Joseph of Arimathea, & Barnabas, all of whom were well put together men with strong associations with the 2nd temple, the priestly point of view & rabbinical thought.  

Continuing with Mark 2…

23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. 24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” 25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 26 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?” 27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

Let’s examine the text in light of the meaning of the names for the high priest cited & recorded in the OT & NT, respectively. 

1. Ahimelech means, “Brother of a King; King is brother, my Brother is King.”

2. “Abiathar” means “Father of Abundance.”

Here is the result if we only use Ahimelech’s given name:  The text informs us that in the days of (given name: Ahimelech (My Brother is King), the high priest (given name: Ahimelech) made a pastoral decision that demonstrated man is not a slave to Sabbath regulations.  

That doesn’t quite fit the narrative, but “Abiathar” does.   How so?  Pay attention to the way Matthew’s Gospel places particular emphasis on Yeshua’s office as Prophet, calling the nation & world to repent & return to the LORD.  Luke’s Gospel calls attention toward Yeshua’s Kingly Office — He is the Supreme Caesar.   Mark highlights Yeshua as a paracleting priest-prophet who intercedes for His people, moving quickly from place to place as He winnows the people, feeds them, binds their wounds, & so on.  

With that in mind, using “Abiathar” as a covenant name (what Orthodox Jews might call his “Hebrew name”) we can summarize the teaching of the text as something like “In the days of covenant name: Abiathar (Father of Abundance), the high priest (who’s given name in 1 Samuel 21: 1 - 6 is  Ahimelech) made a pastoral decision that demonstrated that man is not a slave to Sabbath regulations.   

The high priest in 1 Samuel 21:1-6 decided to refrain from withholding wisdom & abundance (symbolized by the shewbread) from David — in contrast to the majority of the Sanhedrin’s law-keeping, which was withholding God’s wisdom & abundance from the people in Yeshua’s lifetime.   The use of Abiathar’s name also commends his father Ahimelech’s wisdom as well as Abiathar’s own personal abundance & its administration.  

In addition, I am pretty certain that there’s something going on here with the names of God as to the LORD’s intent.   The members of the Godhead are using these names & their meaning to refer to each other insofar as the 3 Offices of Christ are both individually & together “Kephale,” and the KEPHALE of us all is the LORD Most High in each & every one of His names & their (objectively correct) meanings. 

There, problem solved.   We found some zelanite, keephan,  & “…traces of lucanol!” 

 

This isn’t the contradiction the Village Skeptic is looking for.  It’s a Jedi mind trick that is a solvable puzzle if the Corsair approaches the text in a less adversarial posture & listens to what it’s saying.   

May God bless us all, each & every one, and “Go & sin no more.”