Mark 2 26

Mark 2:26 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?

Mark 2:26 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?"

Mark 2:26 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."

Mark 2:26 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?"

Mark 2:26 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."

Mark 2 verses

Mark 2 26 Meaning

This verse serves as Jesus' direct Scriptural defense against the Pharisees' accusation that His disciples were breaking the Sabbath by plucking grain. Jesus refers to the historical account of David, the revered king of Israel, who, when he and his companions were in extreme hunger, ate the sacred showbread reserved only for the priests. By citing this specific Old Testament example, Jesus demonstrates that human necessity and urgent need can, under certain circumstances, override strict ceremonial laws, even those concerning sacred Temple practices. He challenges the Pharisees' rigid interpretation of the Sabbath by appealing to an ancient biblical precedent involving a beloved figure, thereby legitimizing the actions of His own disciples.

Mark 2 26 Context

Mark 2:26 is part of a series of confrontation stories (Mk 2:1-3:6) where Jesus’ authority and mission clash with the traditional religious leadership. The immediate context is the "Sabbath Controversy" (Mk 2:23-28). The Pharisees, strict interpreters of the Law, accuse Jesus' disciples of "doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath" by plucking heads of grain as they passed through a field. This action, while permissible for gleaning in general (Deut 23:25), was considered "harvesting" or "threshing" on the Sabbath by Pharisaic standards and thus a violation. Jesus responds to this accusation by recalling the biblical precedent of David and the showbread. This not only defends His disciples' actions but also serves to highlight His own authority, culminating in His declaration as "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28). Historically and culturally, the Sabbath was a foundational commandment, highly revered in Jewish society, with extensive interpretations (Halakha) that governed daily life. The debate centered on whether human need and compassion could ever override these rigid interpretations, particularly when applied by one with divine authority.

Mark 2 26 Word analysis

• "How" (`πῶς - pōs`): Indicates the manner or circumstances, implying not just that it happened, but the conditions under which David performed this otherwise unlawful act, specifically his extreme hunger and necessity. It invites the listener to consider the justification for David's action.
• "he entered" (`εἰσῆλθεν - eisēlthen`): Refers to David, implying a purposeful, though exceptional, entry into a sacred space, the "house of God."
• "into the house of God" (`εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ - eis ton oikon tou theou`): This refers to the Tabernacle at Nob (1 Sam 21:1-6), which served as God's dwelling place among Israel. Entering for non-priests and partaking of consecrated food within this holy space was a profound breach of ritual law.
• "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" (`ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως - epi Abiathar archiereōs`): This phrase points to the specific historical period.
  • "Abiathar": In 1 Samuel 21, the priest is identified as Ahimelech, Abiathar's father. Abiathar was indeed present (1 Sam 22:20, he fled with David) and later became high priest during David's reign (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 18:16). Scholars debate this apparent discrepancy. Explanations include: (1) Mark refers to Abiathar as the more well-known or prominent high priest of that era, implying the event happened "in the days" when Abiathar's family (or Abiathar himself later) was the high priestly line. (2) Abiathar may have been present and involved, even if Ahimelech was the senior priest. (3) The phrase "in the days of" could signify a general time period, not a direct actor. Regardless, the core point is that the event happened, and was well-known from the scriptures.
  • "high priest" (`ἀρχιερέως - archiereōs`): The chief priestly office, responsible for overseeing cultic worship and maintaining the holiness of the Tabernacle/Temple. The involvement of such a figure underscores the gravity and unusual nature of David's action being condoned.
• "and did eat the showbread" (`καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν - kai tous artous tēs protheseōs ephagen`):
  • "showbread" (`τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως - tous artoi tēs protheseōs`): Literally "bread of the setting forth" or "bread of the presence." Twelve loaves of unleavened bread, symbolizing the twelve tribes of Israel in God's presence, placed on a golden table in the Holy Place of the Tabernacle. They were replaced weekly, with the old loaves being eaten by the priests (Lev 24:5-9). Its consumption by non-priests was a severe violation of Temple ritual law.
  • "did eat": David directly consumed the consecrated bread, a stark deviation from religious protocol.
• "which is not lawful to eat but for the priests" (`οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς μόνους - ouk exestin phagein ei mē tous hiereis monous`): This part highlights the strict prohibition surrounding the showbread, underscoring that David's act was a clear violation of Mosaic Law. This emphasis makes Jesus' justification of it even more impactful.
• "and gave also to them which were with him?" (`καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν - kai edōken kai tois syn autō ousin`): David not only partook of the forbidden bread himself but shared it with his hungry companions. This act amplifies the exceptional nature of the circumstances and David's leadership in an extraordinary situation, directly paralleling Jesus and His hungry disciples.

Mark 2 26 Bonus section

• The Argument's Strength: Jesus’ argument here is a Qal va-Homer ("light and heavy") argument common in rabbinic discourse, though implicit. If David, a king, was allowed to break a minor priestly law due to necessity, how much more permissible are the actions of Jesus, who is greater than the temple and David, in justifying His hungry disciples' Sabbath activity.
• Priestly Permission: Ahimelech (the high priest in 1 Sam 21) consented to David's request because of the dire circumstances and David's declaration of his men's ritual purity. This shows that priestly authority had discretion to make exceptions when confronted with an overriding human need, validating the principle of necessity.
• Sabbath vs. Ritual Law: While the immediate dispute concerned Sabbath plucking, Jesus defends it by appealing to a breach of ritual purity and Temple law, a more sacred and stringent matter than simply "working" on the Sabbath in a field. This makes His defense even more compelling; if that was justified, this certainly is.
• Messianic Foreshadowing: David, chosen by God and suffering from the king's persecution, found divine sustenance in the "house of God." Similarly, Jesus, the Son of David, is establishing a new community where the Son of Man provides spiritual sustenance and freedom from rigid legalism for His followers, prioritizing grace and the heart of God's law.

Mark 2 26 Commentary

Mark 2:26 forms the scriptural backbone of Jesus' defense against the Pharisees' legalistic accusation. By citing the story of David, Jesus brilliantly uses an instance from their own revered history where necessity (David's extreme hunger) justified an exception to ceremonial law (eating the holy showbread). This demonstrated that even a figure as highly esteemed as David, destined to be king and after God's own heart, understood that divine laws were not meant to oppress but to serve human flourishing. Jesus, then, applies this principle: if David's act was justified, then His disciples' minor "transgression" on the Sabbath, also motivated by hunger, is far less significant. Moreover, Jesus subtly implies His own superiority to the Temple and the Law (Matt 12:6), positioning Himself as the "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mk 2:28). The core teaching is that God desires mercy and compassion over rigid adherence to external rituals when true human need is present, a principle echoed in His challenge, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice" (Matt 12:7; Hos 6:6). This episode illustrates Jesus' reinterpretation of the Law, emphasizing its spirit of love and purpose over its mere letter, laying groundwork for the Kingdom values of compassion and freedom from religious burden.