| |
Easton's Bible Dictionary
father of abundance, or my father excels, The son of
Ahimelech the high priest. He was the tenth high priest, and the fourth in descent
from Eli. When his father was slain with the priests of Nob, he escaped, and bearing
with him the ephod, he joined David, who was then in the cave of Adullam ( 1
Samuel 22:20 - 23
; 23:6
). He remained with David, and became priest of the party of which he was the
leader ( 1
Samuel 30:7 ). When David ascended the throne of Judah, Abiathar was appointed
high priest ( 1
Chronicles 15:11 ; 1
Kings 2:26 ) and the "king's companion" ( 1
Chronicles 27:34 ). Meanwhile Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, had been made
high priest. These appointments continued in force till the end of David's reign
( 1
Kings 4:4 ). Abiathar was deposed (the sole historical instance of the deposition
of a high priest) and banished to his home at Anathoth by Solomon, because he
took part in the attempt to raise Adonijah to the throne. The priesthood thus
passed from the house of Ithamar ( 1
Samuel 2:30 - 36
; 1
Kings 1:19 ; 2:26
, 2:27
). Zadok now became sole high priest. In Mark
2:26 , reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar the high
priest." But from 1
Samuel 22 , we learn explicitly that this event took place when Ahimelech,
the father of Abiathar, was high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily
explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the life-time of Abiathar,
and not to the term of his holding the office of high priest. It is not implied
in Mark that he was actual high priest at the time referred to. Others, however,
think that the loaves belonged to Abiathar, who was at that time ( Leviticus
24:9 ) a priest, and that he either himself gave them to David, or persuaded
his father to give them.
Hitchcock's Dictionary of Bible Names
excellent father; father of the remnant
Smith's Bible Dictionary
(father of abundance , i.e. liberal) High priest and
fourth in descent from Eli. (B.C. 1060 - 1012.) Abiathar was the only one of the
all the sons of Ahimelech the high priest who escaped the slaughter inflicted
upon his fathers house by Saul, in revenge for his fathers house by Saul, in revenge
of his having inquired of the Lord for David and given him the shew-bread to eat.
( 1 Samuel 22:1 ) ... Abiathar having become high priest fled to David, and was
thus enabled to inquire of the Lord for him. ( 1 Samuel 23:9 ; 30:7 ; 2 Samuel
2:1 ; 5:19 ) etc. He adhered to David in his wanderings while pursued by Saul;
he was with him while he reigned in Hebron, and afterwards in Jerusalem. ( 2 Samuel
2:1 - 3 ) He continued faithful to him in Absaloms rebellion. ( 2 Samuel 15 ;
24 , 29 , 35 , 36 , 17:15 - 17 ; 19:11 ) When, however, Adonijah set himself up
for Davids successor on the throne, in opposition to Solomon, Abiathar sided with
him, while Zadok was on Solomons side. For this Abiathar was deprived of the high
priesthood. Zadok had joined David at Hebron, ( 1 Chronicles 12:28 ) so that there
was henceforth who high priests in the reign of David, and till the deposition
of Abiathar by Solomon, when Zadok became the sole high priest.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
a-bi'-a-thar, ab-i-a'-thar ('ebhyathar, "father of super-excellence,"
or, "the super-excellent one is father." With changed phraseology these are the
explanations commonly given, though "a father remains" would be more in accord
with the ordinary use of the stem yathar. The pious Abiathar was still conscious
that he had a Father, even after the butchery of his human relatives):
(1) The Biblical Account:
The Scriptures represent that Abiathar was descended from Phinehas the son of
Eli, and through him from Ithamar the son of Aaron; that he was the son of Ahimelech
the head priest at Nob who, with his associates, was put to death by King Saul
for alleged conspiracy with David; that he had two sons, Ahimelech and Jonathan,
the former of whom was, in Abiathar's lifetime, prominent in the priestly service
(1 Samuel 21:1-9 ; 22:7 ; 2 Samuel 8:17 ; 15:27 ; 1 Chronicles 18:16 ; 24:3 ,
6 , 31).
See AHIMELECH; AHITUB.
Abiathar escaped from the massacre of the priests at Nob, and fled to David, carrying
the ephod with him. This was a great accession to David's strength. Public feeling
in Israel was outraged by the slaughter of the priests, and turned strongly against
Saul. The heir of the priesthood, and in his care the holy ephod, were now with
David, and the fact gave to his cause prestige, and a certain character of legitimacy.
David also felt bitterly his having been the unwilling cause of the death of Abiathar's
relatives, and this made his heart warm toward his friend. Presumably, also, there
was a deep religious sympathy between them.
Abiathar seems to have been at once recognized as David's priest, the medium of
consultation with Yahweh through the ephod (1 Samuel 22:20-23 ; 23:6 , 9 ; 30:7
, 8). He was at the head of the priesthood, along with Zadok (1 Chronicles 15:11),
when David, after his conquests (1 Chronicles 13:5; compare 2 Samuel 15:24), and
are so mentioned in the last list of David's heads of departments (2 Samuel 20:25).
Abiathar joined with Adonijah in his attempt to seize the throne (1 Kings 1:7-42),
and was for this deposed from the priesthood, though he was treated with consideration
on account of his early comradeship with David (1 Kings 2:26 , 27). Possibly he
remained high priest emeritus, as Zadok and Abiathar still appear as priests in
the lists of the heads of departments for Solomon's reign (1 Kings 4:4). Particularly
apt is the passage in Psalms 55:12-14, if one regards it as referring to the relations
of David and Abiathar in the time of Adonijah.
There are two additional facts which, in view of the close relations between David
and Abiathar, must be regarded as significant. One is that Zadok, Abiathar's junior,
is uniformly mentioned first, in all the many passages in which the two are mentioned
together, and is treated as the one who is especially responsible. Turn to the
narrative, and see how marked this is. The other similarly significant fact is
that in certain especially responsible matters (1 Chronicles 24 ; 18:16 ; 2 Samuel
8:17) the interests of the line of Ithamar are represented, not by Abiathar, but
by his son Ahimelech. There must have been something in the character of Abiathar
to account for these facts, as well as for his deserting David for Adonijah. To
sketch his character might be a work for the imagination rather than for critical
inference; but it seems clear that though he was a man worthy of the friendship
of David, he yet had weaknesses or misfortunes that partially incapacitated him.
The characteristic priestly function of Abiathar is thus expressed by Solomon:
"Because thou barest the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father" (1 Kings
2:26). By its tense the verb denotes not a habitual act, but the function of ark-bearing,
taken as a whole. Zadok and Abiathar, as high priests, had charge of the bringing
of the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 15:11). We are not told whether it was again
moved during the reign of David. Necessarily the priestly superintendence of the
ark implies that of the sacrifices and services that were connected with the ark.
The details in Kings indicate the existence of much of the ceremonial described
in the Pentateuch, while numerous additional Pentateuchal details are mentioned
in Chronicles.
A priestly function much emphasized is that of obtaining answers from God through
the ephod (1 Samuel 23:6 , 9 ; 30:7). The word ephod (see 1 Samuel 2:18 ; 2 Samuel
6:14) does not necessarily denote the priestly vestment with the Urim and Thummim
(e.g. Leviticus 8:7,8), but if anyone denies that this was the ephod of the priest
Abiathar, the burden of proof rests upon him. This is not the place for inquiring
as to the method of obtaining divine revelations through the ephod.
Abiathar's landed estate was at Anathoth in Benjamin (1 Kings 2:26), one of the
cities assigned to the sons of Aaron (Joshua 21:18).
Apart from the men who are expressly said to be descendants of Aaron, this part
of the narrative mentions priests three times. David's sons were priests (2 Samuel
8:18). This is of a piece with David's carrying the ark on a new cart (2 Samuel
6), before he had been taught by the death of Uzza. "And also Ira the Jairite
was priest to the king" (2 Samuel 20:26 the English Revised Version). "And Zabud
the son of Nathan was priest, friend of the king" (1 Kings 4:5 the English Revised
Version). These instances seem to indicate that David and Solomon had each a private
chaplain. As to the descent and function of these two "priests" we have not a
word of information, and it is illegitimate to imagine details concerning them
which bring them into conflict with the rest of the record.
(2) Critical Opinions Concerning Abiathar:
No one will dispute that the account thus far given is that of the Bible record
as it stands. Critics of certain schools, however, do not accept the facts as
thus recorded. If a person is committed to the tradition that the Deuteronomic
and the priestly ideas of the Pentateuch first originated some centuries later
than Abiathar, and if he makes that tradition the standard by which to test his
critical conclusions, he must of course regard the Biblical account of Abiathar
as unhistorical. Either the record disproves the tradition or the tradition disproves
the record. There is no third alternative. The men who accept the current critical
theories understand this, and they have two ways of defending theories against
the record. In some instances they use devices for discrediting the record; in
other instances they resort to harmonizing hypotheses, changing the record so
as to make it agree with theory. Without here discussing these matters, we must
barely note some of their bearings in the case of Abiathar.
For example, to get rid of the testimony of Jesus (Mark 2:26) to the effect that
Abiathar was high priest and that the sanctuary at Nob was "the house of God,"
it is affirmed that either Jesus or the evangelist is here mistaken. The proof
alleged for this is that Abiathar's service as priest did not begin till at least
a few days later than the incident referred to. This is merely finical, though
it is an argument that is sometimes used by some scholars.
Men affirm that the statements of the record as to the descent of the line of
Eli from Ithamar are untrue; that on the contrary we must conjecture that Abiathar
claimed descent from Eleazar, his line being the alleged senior line of that family;
that the senior line became extinct at his death, Zadok being of a junior line,
if indeed he inherited any of the blood of Aaron. In making such affirmations
as these, men deny the Bible statements as resting on insufficient evidence, and
substitute for them other statements which, confessedly, rest on no evidence at
all.
All such procedure is incorrect. Many are suspicious of statements found in the
Books of Chronicles; that gives them no right to use their suspicions as if they
were perceptions of fact. Supposably one may think the record unsatisfactory,
and may be within his rights in thinking so, but that does not authorize him to
change the record except on the basis of evidence of some kind. If we treat the
record of the times of Abiathar as fairness demands that a record be treated in
a court of justice, or a scientific investigation, or a business proposition,
or a medical case, we will accept the facts substantially as they are found in
Samuel and Kings and Chronicles and Mark.
Willis J. Beecher
Tags:
abiathar, bible commentary, bible history, bible reference, bible study, david, define, eli, high priest, solomon (deposed by), zadok
Comments:
|
 |
|
