Due to what we might call bad theology believed and taught by many biblical scholars today the eschatological worldview of most Christians is wrong, and is clearly not supported in the Bible. For example, scholars as a rule have led many Christians to believe time, as we know it, will end. Nevertheless, the idea that time has an end is disproved in Daniels interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter two of the Book of Daniel, where it is said: “the God of heaven will raise up an everlasting kingdom that will not be destroyed and a kingdom that will not be left to another people. It will break in pieces and bring about the demise of all these kingdoms. But it will stand forever” (Daniel 2:44). If the Kingdom of God, which Jesus set up in the first century AD, will never end, but will stand forever, how does time end? If there is no end of time, how could the eschatological worldview of most Christians today be correct? Where’s the evidence that time will end?
What most Christians believe today about Jesus’ Second Coming is that, sometime in the future, the final week of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks Prophecy will be fulfilled. In other words, a week of seven years must yet be fulfilled. However, if Daniel’s prophecy has been fulfilled, nothing of what is believed today about Jesus’ future coming could be true, because the 70th week of Daniel’s prophecy was fulfilled in the 1st century AD. So, a future rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem is moot; it won’t happen. If the Temple won’t be rebuilt, then the myth about a the coming of a future strong man, who will sacrifice an abomination on the altar in the Temple, or set up an idol there, is also a moot issue; it won’t happen! If none of these things will occur, when will the Rapture occur (if there is a rapture)?[1] If the Rapture doesn’t occur, when will Christ return, but if he already returned in the 1st century AD, why would he return a third time? Do the scriptures predict he will come three times? Such are the problems that bad theology interjects into modern Christian eschatology.
Therefore, we need to ask: “what did Jesus mean when he warned his followers about the abomination of desolation in his Mt. Olivet Prophecy?” Was it something Jesus intended for all generations to look for, or was it only for the first century believers? Obviously, he meant his followers to watch for something, and, when it occurred, they were to flee Judea. Whatever that ‘something’ was, it represented grave danger to his people in that day, but would it mean anything for us today? In order to answer this question, it would help to know what the abomination of desolation is.
The phrase abomination of desolation in Matthew 24:15 is the same as the abomination of desolation in Daniel 12:11. This phrase concerns the destruction brought upon a person or nation due to idolatry. In view of this we need to an event in Jewish history during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. He sacrificed swine’s flesh on the altar of God in the Temple at Jerusalem. Nevertheless, this was not the abomination of desolation, according to the interpretation of Jewish literature written after those days. If this is true, what was the abomination and what did it destroy?
Ever since the Babylonians captivity, the Jews had been ruled by a foreign power, an not only so, but they had been steadily falling prey to the gentile customs and ignoring the customs which the Lord gave them to practice. The gentiles had always wanted to change the Jews customs to something similar to their own and this purpose came close to becoming a reality during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes when a Jew by the name of Jason literally bought the right to the high priesthood for the purpose of leading the Jews into the customs of the Greeks by bringing the Greek games to Jerusalem (2Maccabees 4:7-17). Corruption of the Jews’ relationship with God accelerated when Jason’s relative, Menelaus, paid Antiochus more silver to make him high priest in the place of Jason (2Maccabees 4:23-26). [2]
In whatever manner the Hellenization of the Jews occurred or who is responsible for the process, it was this very thing that brought on the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanies, and it was an act that he later regretted (1Maccabees 6:8-13). Nevertheless, it wasn’t his blasphemous act that was the abomination, but the Hellenization of the Jews, which took them away from obeying the Lord, that was the abomination. Notice what the Jewish writers say:
And so haughty was Antiochus in mind, that he considered not that the Lord was angry for a while for the sins of them that dwelt in the city, and therefore his eye was not upon the place. For had they not been formerly wrapped in many sins, this man, as soon as he had come, had forthwith been scourged, and put back from his presumption, as Heliodorus was, whom Seleucus the king sent to view the treasury. Nevertheless, God did not choose the people for the place’s sake, but the place far the people’s sake. And therefore, the place itself, that was partaker with them of the adversity that happened to the nation, did afterward communicate in the benefits sent from the Lord: and as it was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty, so again, the great Lord being reconciled, it was set up with all glory. [2 Maccabees 5:17-20 (emphasis mine)]
It was a matter of divine judgment. God brought Antiochus against the Jews, because they wholeheartedly deserted him, just as they had done in the matter of Nebuchadnezzar’s destroying the Temple. Therefore, this matter of abomination of desolation seems to be a national sin led and encouraged by the high priests of the days of Antiochus Epiphanes. What then did Jesus mean when he warned the apostles of the abomination that makes desolate, concerning which Daniel also wrote? I conclude this study HERE.
[1] The New Covenant text does not support the doctrine of the Rapture.
[2] See also JOSEPHUS, Antiquities of the Jews, 12.5.1.
Smoodock's Blog 
19 responses to “The Abomination of Desolation”
The abomination that causes desolation was set up outside the temple. It is the most cursed symbol of all creation for the full wrath of God was poured out on it and every sin in the history of mankind covered it, including the final rebellion of mankind that is yet to come; the rebuilding of the temple and making sacrafices to the God whom they rejected and crucified. The abomination of desolation is Jesus Christ, the Son of God, rejected, humilated and nailed to a cross and raised up on Golgatha for all the world to see. The wrath of God follows Christ through history and will eventually fall upon the anti-christ as he declares himself to be God and is worshipped by all but the elect. Yet we know Him as Savior and Lord for by his death and ressurection and blood we have been purchased for God. He is the Holy temple, as are we in whom He resides. But we will become a curse when we reject the new temple built by the hands of men and the New Jericho, I mean the New Jerusalem, no I mean the New Jericho; for they would lay the foundation with the First Born of God and it’s gates with those who refuse peace at the cost of rejecting sacrafice made once and for all. There is no greater abomination imaginable than the murder of God at the hands of those he created and sought to save–and yet He forgives us still. God is merciful!
Greetings Craig, and thank you for reading my blog and taking an interest enough to leave a comment. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to disagree with you in that Jesus is never referred to in Scripture as an “abomination”. The word is used four times in the NT, twice in the Olivet Prophecy of Matthew and Mark. There it speaks of the abomination of which Daniel spoke standing in the Holy Place or standing where it ought not to stand. This is hardly Jesus. Luke mentions the word, saying what is pleasing to men is abominable to God, Luke 16:15. Jesus is hardly pleasing to the world and is definitely not abominable to God. It is mentioned in Revelation 21:27 for the fourth and final time in the NT, showing that in the new Jerusalem which come down out of heaven from God shall contain nothing that works the abomination. Therefore, neither could this be Jesus.
If we look into the OT we find that the first time abomination is mentioned in connection with Israel sinning is when Solomon began to worship foreign gods (1Kings 11:5). Israel never recovered from this sin. It began to destroy the nation immediately after Solomon’s death when the nation was divided in two. It was the sin that destroyed both kingdoms. It represents a national rebellion against God—a national abandonment of following him. It occurred again in the restored kingdom around the time of Antiochus Epiphanes when the high priests (the leaders of the nation) began to lead the nation away from God and into Hellenism, fully embracing the ways of the nations around them. This resulted in the king desecrating the Altar of God by sacrificing swine’s flesh upon it. In the NT it began to occur at the death of Stephen where the nation began rejecting Jesus and persecuting the Hellenist Messianics. Later, phase two occurred in the murder of James the brother of John in Acts 12 and the Apostles had to leave Jerusalem. The final phase of the national abandonment of Jesus as the Messiah occurred when James the brother of Jesus was killed by Ananias the high priest and son of Annas who had Jesus killed. Soon after this the Jews were at war with Rome and Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed.
Lord bless you to the understanding of his word.
He who knew no sin became sin. Jesus, the Son of God, was considered a blasphemer and accursed by men though he pleased God. At the same time, it pleased God to crush Him because He was covered in the sins of man (what was pleasing to us) and offered Himself up as the object for God’s wrath. Jesus took upon Himself all that God considered abomnibable while those He came to save found Him worthy of death outside the city. And as far as desolation is concerned, He stated clearly that He did not come to bring peace to the world but a sword. The desolations being poured out since the time of Christ is the wrath of God being poured out on mankind because of the continual rejection and rebellion against the One who was lifted up at the crucifiction.
We say that the desecration of the Alter of God by sacrificing swine’s flesh was an abomination, but there are a few problems with this. Jesus said that He would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days. His crucifiction removed the temple and His resurrection rebuilt it in the form of Himself. When this ‘desecration’ in the restored kingdom occured, neither the temple nor its’ alter were holy, and the very act of sacrificing anything was a further rejection of Christ. As far as swine’s flesh, the Lord had made it clear to Peter and expressed in greater detail through Paul that there was no longer anything unclean. To sacrifice at the alter was no different than a return to circumcision. As Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Gentile anymore. He who denies Christ will be denied by Christ; Jew and gentile are meaningless distinctions.
The 70th week is split between the time of John the Baptist through pentacost, and the future ‘abomination that causes desolation’, which Christ foretold in the Gospels, is the second half of the 70th week. But if Christ destroyed the temple and is now in fact the Temple Himself, with those sanctified by His blood now residing in His spiritual body/kingdom, then the rebuilding of the temple on the temple mount will be the final rejection of Christ as the messiah, and the invitation for the world to worship God in His holy temple will be an invitation to the world, including Christians who will participate in mass, to participate in the final rebellion against God. I believe God took very seriously the sending of His only Son to become sin for a rebellious world. To think that rebuilding the temple and turning peoples attention to the days before this final sacrifice is going to please God is to be a forgetful hearer of God’s word. Christ can not be the temple and there also be a rebuilt temple; for that would set up two paths, or the illusion of two paths to God and a rejection of Christ’s testimony.
As Christ became an ‘abomination’ in that He who is Holiness took upon Himself all the sins of mankind, and ‘desolation’ both terrible and eternal falls upon those who reject Him as the only sancuary from the wrath God, it follows then that the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem will be setting up a likeness of Christ for the purpose of leading the world to participate in the previous rejection of Christ. This likeness will be an ‘abomination’ standing where it should not be; because it took His crucifiction to remove it. Rebuilding King Solomon’s Temple seems so noble, how could it be deception? As far as referring to Christ as an abomination, does He not refer to Himself through His testimony as ‘Sin’? Do we not say, He who knew no sin became sin? If we truly saw what we poured out on the Holy One of God, what would we see? What would we say?
It isn’t the temple they are going to rebuild, it will be Jericho; for the temple was a fortress to the gentile that stood between us and the Holiness of God.
Well, we only know in part what we will one day fully know. I am content with that.
Blessing in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Craig Jacobson
Greetings Craig, and thanks again for reading and commenting on my blog.
You use a lot of Scripture to support you idea, but the problem is your idea of Jesus being the “abomination of desolation” is not Scriptural. There is absolutely no support in the word of God for this claim. Moreover, you claim that the Temple and the Altar of God were unholy after Jesus was crucified and all sacrifices that were done there were a further rejection of Jesus. Yet, the Apostles taught daily in the Temple and even Paul decades later sacrificed there.
You are making statements that are clearly unbiblical. Whether or not a Temple exists in Jerusalem has nothing to do with rejecting Jesus. Jesus taught in the Temple at Jerusalem as did the Apostles, and they sacrificed and worshiped there. Jesus called it his Father’s House, and a House of Prayer for all nations. Why would such a thing be an abominable to God?
Lord bless you in the understanding of his word,
Eddie
Ed — thank you for diligent study of Scripture and your willingness to share your very helpful and enlightened insights. Pertinent to your exchange with Craig (above), I’ll restate something I posted to a different aritcle by you.
As I’ve been reading your presentation regarding Danie’s 70 Weeks, a light went on. I have often asked myself whle trying to interpret the “Abomination of Desolation”, — “What from God’s perspective, would be considered the most detestable (abominable) act that man could commit? Whatever that thing is must surely be the “Abomination that causes Desolation”. Until now, I surmized that act to be “to reject the Son of God’s sacrificial death”.
Now, with lights on, I see my error. Christ not only died but was raised and yes God accepted Him as the perfect and final sacrifice for sin — but, there is more, and this is the part I was overlooking: After Christ ascended, He sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost — the New Covenant was not fully initiated until this event occured. Although I’ve known this for years (John 14-16 are some of my favorite chapters in scripture), I failed to see it in the context of the “Abomination of Desolation” and all the associated chronological questions (1260, 1290, 1335 days, 3.5 yrs, times time and half a time). The analogy of faith (comparing scripture with scripture) is SOooooooooo important — and I thank you for helping me to see.
So, what is the “Abomination of Desolation”? It is Israel’s formal rejection of the New Covenant which couldn’t occur until the New Covenant was fully initiated, which was at Pentecost (50 days after the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus). Yes, Ciaphas and other Jewish leaders brought false witness and forced the crucifixion of Jesus by insisting to Pilate, “we have no King but Caesar”, but, as horrible and eggregious as this was — this was not the most abominable act and it was not the act that caused desoation”.
The most abominable act was when the same Jewish leadership and their Jewish followers persistently rejected the New Covenant — which, as you pointed out in a different article, reached it’s culmination at the Stoning of Stephen. This persistent rejection of the New Covenant is the unpardonable sin that Jesus warned about in Matthew (blasphemy against the Son can be pardoned but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be pardoned). This persistent rejection of the New Covenant finally reached the point of no return (at Stephen’s death) and this rejection is what eventually resulted in the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
One other comment: The “Abomination” — whatever it is — must be an act committed by one who has been enlightened by God’s truth. Antiochus IV or the Antichrist/Beast (of the pre-millenial theologians) CAN’T commit a more abominable act than Ciaphas and his ilk — to whom much is given much is required. Ciaphas had light, responsibility and history that made him far more culpable than Antiochus or Antichrist could ever be. The same can be said of the Israelites who rejected the new covenant for those 3.5 years after Christ’s death . . . they, as a people (the covenant people) were more culpable than any other people or nation (inclucing America) could ever be. Thats why I believe Ciaphas and his covenant breaking followers committed the Abomination that causes desolation. Both the abominable act and the ensuing desolation have already occured in history — they are not future events.