We now move to one of the most controversial portions in our interpretation of the Olivet Discourse which is the identity of the Abomination of Desolation.
THE ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (Matthew 24:15)
These following texts are important to examine with their parallels found in Mark and Luke’s accounts. Note the three texts and how they are expressed:
| Therefore, when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. (Matthew 24:15) | “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. (Mark 13:14) | “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; (Luke 21:20-21) |
In Matthew’s rendition of the discourse, the Lord Jesus begins the verse with the word therefore which ties the preceding “end will come” with the following words. While vs. 4-14 describe the conditions moving towards the end, vs. 15-28 describe what will it look like right before the end, and He grants His listeners instructions on what to do when they see these things!
The most obvious sign that the end had arrived was that they would see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel. Daniel describes this abomination as a desecration of the worship in the temple with the intent to stop the regular sacrifices (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11). In Daniel, the reference is to the king of the north which most interpreters, even in the first century, related to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes who set up a pagan altar in the temple and slaughtered a pig. He also set up statues of Zeus within the temple walls to transform the temple of God into a pagan temple. Josephus describes it in this way:
And when the king had built an idol altar upon God’s altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day[1].
The book of the Maccabees describes it in this way:
On the fifteenth day of the month Kislev, in the year one hundred and forty-five, the king erected the desolating abomination upon the altar of burnt offerings, and in the surrounding cities of Judah they built pagan altars. They also burned incense at the doors of houses and in the streets. (1 Maccabees 1:54-55)[2]
The precursor of these Danielic passages was completed in the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes and now the Lord Jesus states that the fulfillment is an event coming in their lifetime. To a well-versed Jewish person living in those days, the abomination of desolation would have been linked with the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the desecration of the temple by a foreign army. The Lord speaks of the location of this abomination as “standing in the holy place”. The holy place is probably speaking of the temple but shouldn’t be limited as such (see below). It was the topic of discussion since the beginning of Matthew 21.
In his book, “Last Days Madness”, Gary Demar argues that the abomination of desolation was a worship meant to be offered in a false manner or profaning the correct means of worship. He sees the expression abomination of desolation better described as an abomination that brings desolation. He puts forth 4 potential candidates for the abomination that would bring this desolation upon the temple and the city.
The first candidate being the Zealots who were nationalist defenders of Israel and who’s revolt in 66 A.D. caused the Romans to invade and destroy the city to quench their uprising. Not only did they provoke this retaliation but, as Gary DeMar points out also saw their chance for nationalistic and religious revival by storming the temple[3]. These Zealots had taken command of the temple area and committed serious acts of violence against the temple and even killing some of its officers. Demar continues:
At the outbreak of the Jewish war, the Zealots moved in and occupied the temple area. They allowed person who had committed crimes to roam freely in the Holy of Holies, and they perpetrated murder within the temple itself. These acts of sacrilege climaxed in the winter of 67-68 with the farcical investiture of the clown Phanni as high priest.[4]
The 2nd potential candidate was the Idumeans who were invited to the revolt by the Zealots. When they entered the city, they killed many Jews and were responsible for the murder of the chief priest, Ananus.
Another potential contender for the title Abomination is the Religious Leaders. Demar believes these fit best since he argues that it would need to be a religious leader to defile the temple and the worship. He cites Ezekiel 5:11 – So as I live,’ declares the Lord God, ‘surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye will have no pity and I will not spare.
I would be inclined to identify the abomination that brings desolation with the 4th option, mainly as the Roman armies. Based upon the expression in Daniel and its fulfillment by Epiphanes Antiochus, they would have been looking for an emperor with his armies ravaging the city and setting up idols and false worship in the temple. They would have connected the Abomination of Desolation with this historical event. The armies of Titus surrounded Jerusalem and then victoriously won the city from its Jewish defenders. They burned the great city down and while it was in chaos and flames, we know that some Roman soldiers brought idols into the sanctuary and offered a sacrifice to their god in the temple. Josephus describes it in this way:
And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator with the greatest acclamations of joy[5].
This fits with Luke’s rendition that when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near (Luke 21:20). The terms “Abomination of Desolation” and “the armies that bring her desolation” are communicating the same thing but in a different way. Sam Storms rightly points out:
Why did Matthew use the term Abomination of Desolation whereas Luke identifies it explicitly as the activity of the invading Roman armies? The most likely explanation is that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience and wanted to link up the A.D. 70 prophecy with the prophecy of Daniel. Luke, on the other hand, was writing to Gentiles outside the borders of Judea. Thus, the terminology “Abomination of Desolation” would have been confusing and enigmatic to them, prompting Luke to graphically identify precisely what Jesus had in mind: The Abomination that brings desolation to Jerusalem and its temple in the invading army under the leadership of Titus. We must remember that Jesus is answering the question of the disciples concerning “these things”, “this temple”, “the stones that you see”, all of which would occur in the lifetime of “this generation” (V.34). [6]
R.T. France does provide a challenge for all these different views.
None of these views quite fit what this verse says… the Roman presence in the sanctuary too late to provide a signal for escape before the end came, while the Zealot occupation, which took place at the right time, was perhaps not quite the type of pagan defilement envisaged by Daniel.[7]
One possible solution to this challenge is to not see the term “holy place” referring to the temple but referring to the holy city. A possible parallel to this text is from Daniel 9:26 where we read that after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. As we can see from this text, the desolation is linked, not only to the destruction of the sanctuary (temple) but also to the city.
Not everyone agrees with this understanding of the text. One popular interpretation is that this is speaking of a rebuilt temple which is yet to be erected and that the antichrist will one day sit in this temple as God. It is said that Matthew 24:15 and Luke 21:20 are describing two different events. The former being a future rebuilt temple while the latter is speaking of the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70. I struggle to see where this is speaking of two different occasions. The two texts have too many parallels to be communicating something different. Here are a few:
| Matthew 24 | Luke 21 | |
| Not one stone unturned | 24:2 | 21:5 |
| The Questions | 24:3 | 21:6-7 |
| False Christs | 24:4-5 | 21:8 |
| Nation rises against Nation | 24:7 | 21:10 |
| Earthquakes | 24:7 | 21:11 |
| Famines | 24:7 | 21:11 |
| Deliver you | 24:9 | 21:12 |
| Jerusalem’s Desolation | 24:15 | 21:20 |
| Those in Judea Flee to the Mountains | 24:16 | 21:20 |
| Pregnant & Nursing | 24:18 | 21:23 |
- Both writers introduce the discourse with the same questions from the disciples
- Both writers use similar signs to describe events prior to the “end” such as wars, earthquakes and false Messiahs misleading
- Both warn to flee the area when they see the desolation
The term “standing” which in Mark’s rendition is a masculine participle seems to point to a man. The text is then paralleled with 2 Thessalonians 2:3-10 where “the man of lawlessness” takes his place in the temple to be worshiped. The problem with this interpretation is that Matthew renders “standing” in the neuter which, as N.T. France points out: denotes an object or occurrence rather than a person[8]. The abomination of desolation is not described by Matthew as a man but in the neuter which Luke then describes as the armies surrounding Jerusalem. Perhaps Mark’s rendition would be better considered not as a single man but as men such as those in a collective army.
In our next portion, we will move to addressing the Great Tribulation.
[1] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities, 12:253
[2] See also 1 Maccabees 4:36-59; 6:7; 2 Maccabees 10:1-8
[3] Last Days Madness, Gary Demar, P. 104
[4] IBID
[5] Flavius Josephus, Jewish Wars, 6.316
[6] Kingdom Come: An Amillennial Alternative, Mentor, Sam Storms, 2015, P. 247
[7] France P. 913
[8] France P. 912
The Moncton Herald 