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”
Well, we agree it was the high priest who was the abomination that brought the desolation. Where he stood was in the Temple. Any place in the Temple courts was holy. Jesus called the Temple courts places of prayer when he threw the buyers and sellers out of the Temple area. He claimed the Temple and its courts were his Father’s house. Moreover, it is more clearly stated in Leviticus 6:16 and 26 for example. The courts of the Temple are considered holy places. Stephen was tried by the Sanhedrin which met within the Temple compound, and the high priest Annas or Caiaphas led the proceedings (Acts 7:1).
No, the Abomianiton of Deoslation is an Idol not a person.
That’s odd, since you mention that the high priest would be standing in the holy place. Why couldn’t he be an idol, standing between God and man? Tell me, do you consider movie stars and famous musicians candidates for being idols? We often call them idols. Sometimes we refer to them as icons, which can also mean idol. They are people and many of us common folk treat them as idols in every sense of the word as used in the Bible. What makes an idol a thing and not a person? Psalm 82 calls those in authority over us gods. If they are in rebellion, they have a fairly good opportunity to lead people away from God. Certainly they have great power of influence. The high priest, therefore, would be, in one sense of the word, a god—-in the Temple of God showing himself that he is God! Well, anyway, that’s how I see it. :-)
The Priest is allowed to stand there, Mark 13 says the Abomination will stand “where it ought not” and Matthew 24 says that is the Holy Place. That is what I was trying to explain.
Paul’s Thessalonian Epistles where a Commentary on Matthew 24, he explains for us what the Abomination Jesus warned of will be. A Man standing in The Temple proclaiming himself to be God.
So, you claim the abomination is an unknown man, not the high priest. You try to justify this by claiming that the high priest was permitted in the Temple (the Most Holy Place), so Mark’s “where he ought not” (Mark 13:14) couldn’t refer to the high priest, because he was allowed there (once a year).
First of all, the text says ‘holy’ place (Matthew 24:15), not ‘most holy’ place. Secondly, anyplace in the Temple courts was considered ‘holy’. Therefore, your criteria excluding the high priest is not justified. It could by him, or it could be anyone else. Third, do you believe the high priest had the right to judge Jesus and condemn him to death? He did it in the Temple, so if he didn’t have the right to stand in judgment of Jesus, he was standing in the holy place where he ought not to be (in judgment of the King). Similarly, when the high priest judged Stephen in Acts 7, did he have a right to do as he did or was he standing “where he ought not” in the holy place judging the work of God? Finally, if the “desolation” that was brought about was the “destruction of the city and the sanctuary” (Daniel 9:26), then we need to ask ourselves: “What brought about the destruction of “city and the Temple” in 70 AD? Did you ever consider that the high priests: Annas and his family of high priests, Caiaphas (son-in-law), Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananias (all sons) and Matthias (son of Theophilus, grandson of Annas) were in office whenever a persecution erupted against believing Jews, including Paul and James, the Lord’s brother. In the 60 years Rome directly ruled Jerusalem before the Jewish war Annas or a member of his family ruled as high priest for 43 of those years, and not a single persecution against the saints of God was begun without one of them holding that office. Revelation 6:9-11 claims that the blood of the saints was avenged against those responsible. Who was responsible? According to history it was Annas and his family.