Why Did Jesus Say the Wrong Name?
The Hidden Warning in the Sabbath Controversy
Why did Jesus say the wrong name?
During their Sabbath walk, Jesus and his disciples sparked a controversy. By simply plucking grain to satisfy their hunger (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, and Luke 6:1-5), they challenged Sabbath rules and the very meaning of religious authority.
When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus defended his followers by invoking the story of David and the showbread (1 Samuel 21). Traditionally, this passage shows Jesus prioritizing human need over rigid rule following, using David’s actions to justify breaking ceremonial law when needed.
This (appropriate) interpretation does not address an apparent discrepancy in Jesus’ words. In Mark’s account, Jesus refers to this event happening “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” (Mark 2:26). Yet, 1 Samuel 21 and Psalm 52 clearly state that Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, was the priest who gave David the bread.
Why did Jesus say the wrong name? Did he just get it wrong? Or is there something we’re missing?
Digging Deeper: The Story of David and the Showbread
To understand the implications of Jesus’ reference, I suggest we examine the original story in 1 Samuel 21 both more closely and more broadly. David, fleeing from Saul, came to Nob and asked the priest Ahimelech for food. Ahimelech gave him the holy bread, which was typically reserved only for the priests (1 Samuel 21:1–6).
But there’s a crucial detail in this passage that Jesus doesn’t mention, a detail that the author of 1 Samuel saved until the very end for maximum impact. “Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the Lord. His name was Doeg the Edomite, the chief of Saul’s herdsmen” (1 Samuel 21:7).
Doeg’s presence in the story is not a passing detail. This last-second addition of a character is a bombshell to the story in 1 Samuel. This unseen observer becomes the antagonist of the next part of the story and, by extension, Jesus’ use of it.
The Significance of Doeg
Doeg’s presence at Nob that day had dire consequences. In the next chapter, we learn that Doeg told Saul about David’s visit with the priests (1 Samuel 22:9-19). Saul was furious, and ordered the priests of Nob to be executed for helping David. Saul’s guards refused to carry out that gruesome task, so Doeg massacred eighty-five priests and destroyed the entire town of Nob (1 Samuel 22:19).[1]
David was heartbroken by the news. In Psalm 52, we read David’s lament of this situation, whose superscription explicitly connects it to “when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul, ‘David has come to the house of Ahimelech.’” In this psalm, David contrasts those who “love evil more than good, and lying more than speaking what is right” (Psalm 52:3) with those who trust in God’s steadfast love.
Jesus’ Masterful Use of Narrative
With this background in mind, we can see just how brilliant Jesus’s response to the Pharisees really was. He’s not only citing a precedent for breaking ceremonial law. Jesus is also drawing a subtle but powerful parallel between Doeg and the Pharisees themselves.
Just as Doeg was present with the priests, appearing devout but harboring evil intentions, so too were the Pharisees watching Jesus and his disciples, their seemingly righteous concerns masking a growing hostility. With discerning wisdom, Jesus saw beyond their surface-level question about Sabbath observance to the danger they represented.
The mention of Abiathar instead of Ahimelech becomes significant in this light. By referring to “the days of Abiathar,” Jesus highlights not just to the moment when David ate the bread, but to the aftermath—the massacre that followed, in which Abiathar was the sole survivor (1 Samuel 22:20). For people of a certain age, mentioning “the day Lyndon Johnson became president” invokes the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Similarly, mentioning Abiathar’s priesthood invokes the horrific circumstances under which Abiathar became high priest.[2]
Jesus is using what we might call “negative narrative space.” He mentions the bread, he mentions Abiathar, and he leaves the space in between—the space that includes the treachery of Doeg and the massacre of the priests.
This sophisticated use of narrative allows Jesus to communicate on multiple levels. To the crowds and disciples, he’s defending his actions on the Sabbath. But to the Pharisees—and to those with ears to hear—he’s issuing a warning about the dangers of their path.
Just as Doeg and Saul murderously pursued God’s priests, the Pharisees and religious leaders were about to murderously pursue Jesus and his followers. And that is the very next narrative beat in all three of the gospels (Matthew 12:14; Mark 3:6; and Luke 6:11).
Unpacking Jesus’ Warning
By invoking this story, Jesus highlights the danger of false piety—of appearing righteous while harboring evil intentions. The Pharisees, like Doeg, were present at this moment of spiritual significance. They watched, they questioned, they challenged—all under the guise of protecting the law. But their hearts were far from God’s purposes. They were not about God’s king; they were servants of murderous Saul.
In this context, Jesus’ statement, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Matthew 12:7, quoting Hosea 6:6) takes on new depth. He’s not only advocating for a more compassionate application of the law. Invoking language from Samuel’s warning to Saul (1 Samuel 15:22), Jesus also warns against the kind of rigid, self-righteous piety that masks harmful intentions—the very kind of piety exemplified first by Doeg and then by the Pharisees.
This interpretation helps explain why Jesus concludes this discussion by declaring Himself “lord of the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5). He’s not simply claiming authority over Sabbath regulations. He’s asserting his role as the ultimate judge of true and false piety, of genuine worship versus destructive legalism.
Saul was trying to kill David, the rightful King of Israel. The pharisees were trying to kill Jesus, the rightful King of the Universe.
Implications for Biblical Interpretation
This deeper reading of the passage demonstrates the importance of contextual and intertextual analysis in biblical interpretation. Jesus’ reference to the story of David and the showbread is not merely an isolated proof-text, but a rich allusion that draws on the broader narrative of 1 Samuel and even incorporates the reflections found in the Psalms.
Moreover, it reveals Jesus’ profound understanding and use of Scripture. Jesus certainly knows the facts of the biblical stories, but he also understands their deeper implications and can apply them with remarkable precision to current situations. This challenges us to approach Scripture not as a collection of isolated stories or rules, but as a beautiful, interconnected narrative that invites our careful (and repeated!) study and reflection.
Conclusion
The Sabbath controversy, when examined closely, reveals far more than a debate about Sabbath regulations. Through a masterful use of narrative and allusion, Jesus warns his hearers about the dangers of false piety and the misuse of religion for harmful ends.
This incident challenges us to approach Scripture with renewed curiosity and attentiveness, recognizing that even familiar passages may contain layers of meaning for us to discover.
As we grapple with questions of faith and practice today, Jesus’ example invites us to look beyond surface-level interpretations. To hear Christ’s voice, let us place ourselves under the Bible’s authority and within its story.
That’s so sick! Scripture is so beautiful and rich. Grateful for people who dig into the weeds to show that rather than dumming it down
Fabulous!