The reference to the high priest Abiathar is striking and already caused a problem in the ancient church.1 Shouldn’t it be “Ahimelech” (1 Samuel 21:1; 1 Samuel 22:9–11)? Is this an error, and is that why Matthew and Luke don’t mention the name? Does Mark mean that the events took place in the presence of the (later) high priest Abiathar? Does he hark back to another name description, such as we find in 2 Samuel 8:17, 1 Chronicles 16:16, and 1 Chronicles 24:6 (Zadok and Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, were priests during David’s reign)? It is difficult to make a choice. It is possible that Jesus wanted to indicate the presence of Abiathar. The reference is somewhat redundant as an exact description of the time the event happened. Perhaps it is more in the nature of a general description of the time (it happened during the lifetime and in the presence of Abiathar, who became well-known as the high priest (cf. Luke 4:27: “in the time of the prophet Elisha”)). In that case Abiathar is referred to because he had great authority: no one less than Abiathar, who fled to David shortly thereafter, was present and he did not reprimand David. He even joined David’s ranks. Abiathar, authority for the teachers of the law, was thus really their opposite. For they too had to allow Jesus’ work to proceed and to join Jesus’ ranks.2
26 how he entered the house of God, in the time ofAbiathar 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?”