An Analysis of the Abomination of
Desolation
The phrase “abomination of desolation” or “desolating abomination”/
“abomination that makes desolate” translating the Hebrew Old Testament term
shiqqutz(im) meshomem
and the Greek New Testament term bdelugma tes eremoseos, appears in
prophetic contexts dealing with the desecration and defilement of the Jewish
Temple in Jerusalem. In the Old Testament the phrase occurs in only in
Daniel (9:27; 11:31; 12:11). In these texts the form of the Hebrew term for
“desolation” appears as the Pol’el participle shomem or meshomem
which has a range of verbal meanings: “devastate, desolate, desert, appall,
with nominal derivatives: waste, horror, devastation, or appallment. It has
been used to describe an attitude of appalling horror due to criminal and
barbaric acts of idolatry. Therefore, the basic idea of the root is the
desolation caused by some great disaster, usually as a result of divine
judgment. The Pol’el stem here has a causative (or better, factitive) force
similar to the use of the Hiphil, except that the Hiphil generally involves
a physical devastation, while the Pol’el seems to put more stress on the
fact that someone has actively caused desecration.
In the case of the Temple such an act would render it ritually unfit for the
worship and service of God. In Daniel, two nuances of the term: "desolation
due to war "and "desolation due to idolatry," are combined in Daniel
8:13, which describes the condition of Jerusalem under foreign domination:
“How long will be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the
transgression that causes desolation so as to permit both the Sanctuary and
its vessels to be trampled?" This is very similar to the description of
Jerusalem in Daniel 12:11 where a foreign invader has both abolished the
regular sacrifice and substituted "an abomination that causes desolation.”
When combined with the Hebrew term for “abomination” (shiqqutz) the
idea of the forcible intrusion of idolatry into a place of sanctity in order
to cause defilement is significantly intensified.
In the New Testament, the phrase appears only in the Olivet Discourse
(Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14) as a partial citation from Daniel (explicitly
stated as such in Matthew 24:15). While the term eremos
(“desolation”) appears in Luke 21:20, it does not have reference to the
technical phrase and is used to describe the general condition of Jerusalem
(not specifically the Temple). This usage is in harmony with Jesus’
previous pronouncement on the city in Matthew 23:38 (where the same term is
used) and Luke 19:43-44. While the Second Temple is in view in the
pronouncement, the focus is upon its destruction (rather than desecration)
as evidence that divine judgment has occurred. This is quite distinct
from the desecration caused by the “abomination of desolation,” an act which
results not in divine judgment upon the Temple, but upon the one who
desecrates it (see Daniel 9:27c).
In addition, the use of the phrase in Daniel and the Olivet Discourse
clearly influenced allusions in other prophetic contexts (1 Corinthians
3:17; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation 11:1-2). The first part of this
phrase, the word bdelugma (“abomination”), is used by the New
Testament four times (Luke 16:15; Revelation 7:4, 5; 21:27), and by the
Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) seventeen times, to
translate the Hebrew shiqqutz. The term bdelugma
(“abomination”) comes from a root with meanings “to make foul” and “to
stink.” Thus it has the basic idea of something that makes one feel
nauseous, and by transference, psychologically or morally abhorrent and
detestable. As with the Hebrew meaning in the Old Testament, the New
Testament Greek term is applied particularly to idols or associated with
idolatrous practices. In this regard bdelugma appears as an
expression of antithesis between the divine and human wills, as well as
denoting the repugnance of the ungodly to the will of God
and is used in Luke 16:15 of the repugnance of God to human
pride (i.e., to things highly esteemed by men, which is tantamount to
idolatry).
The second member of our expression “desolation” (Greek, eremoseos) is the
genitive feminine singular of a root which signifies “to lay waste, make
desolate, bring to ruin” (see Matthew 12:25; Luke 11:17; Revelation 17:16;
18:17, 19). It is used most commonly in the Septuagint for meshomem
or its cognates (cf. Leviticus 26:34, 35; Psalm 73:19; 2 Chronicles 30:7;
36:21; Jeremiah 4:7), generally of the condition of desolation of the Land
as a result of desecration and exile (the sense agreeing with the background
of Daniel 9:27). The form of the expression (both in Hebrew and Greek) has
been considered an anomalous construction in grammatical terms. A number of
theories have been offered to explain this, however, the literary and
theological linkage of both the terms shiqqutz (“abomination”) and
meshomem
(“desolation”) in the prophetic writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel appear to
provide the best explanation. These texts, especially with their promise of
a resolution of the dilemma for the Temple, which in part governed Daniel's
concern (Jeremiah 25:11-12; Daniel 9:2), may well have influenced this. In
these books, which treat extensively the desecration and defilement of the
Temple, frequent mention is made in pertinent contexts of pagan profanation
of the Sanctuary of both “abominations” and “desolations” (Jeremiah 4:1, 27;
7:10; 44:22; Ezekiel 5:11, 14-15; 7:20)
and of idolatry that having desecrated the Holy Place, will
call forth foreign invaders who will further desecrate and destroy the
Temple (cf. Jeremiah 4:6-8; Ezekiel 6:11; 7:20-23). Jeremiah 44:22 in
particular states that Israel’s “abominations” have caused the desolation of
the Land and made it “an object of horror” (compare Ezekiel 5:11, 15;
7:20-24; 36:19-21).
From this brief survey of the terms that comprise the phrase it can be seen
that acts of ritual impurity and especially the threat of foreign invasion
of the Temple, were viewed by the Israelites as ultimate violations of
sanctity and as a sign of judgment. For this reason, they were extremely
careful to prevent such acts, and in the time of the Second Temple had
erected a boundary fence, the Soreg, with a warning inscription promising
death to any non-Israelite who passed beyond it into the court of the
Israelites. The New Testament (Acts 21:27-28) records the violent opposition
of the Jewish crowd in this area to Paul when it was mistakenly believed
that he had taken a Gentile proselyte (Titus) into the Temple to offer
sacrifice. The specific accusation against Paul is that of “defiling the
holy place” (the Temple), verse 28. With this background it is possible to
understand why the future act of desecration by the “abomination of
desolation” appears as the climatic event of Daniel’s seventieth week and as
the signal event bringing the intensification of God’s wrath in the second
half of the Tribulation (Matthew 24:15-21; Mark 13:14-19).
The historical background of the phrase is drawn from the period of the
first phase of the Second Temple during which a host of actual and would-be
desecrators of the Temple invaded Jerusalem. However, the specific
background in Daniel appears to be the invasion of the Syrian-Greek ruler
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC) who erected an idol in the area of the
Temple near the Brazen Altar. In Daniel 11:31 we read: “And forces from him
will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress (Temple compound), and do away
with the regular sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination of
desolation.” This occurred on the 25 Kislev (December), 167 BC, and led to
the military overthrow of Antiochus’ forces by the Jews of Jerusalem
instigated by a priestly revolt and the rededication (Hebrew chanukkah) of
the Temple (an event commemorated by Jesus in John 10:22-23). Most critical
scholars have dismissed an eschatological interpretation of the “abomination
of desolation” in Daniel, assuming all references must refer to the
Antiochus desecration, since they view the writing of Daniel having occurred
after this event (vaticinium ex eventu, “prophecy after the event”).
However, while Daniel 11 may have used the phrase “abomination of
desolation” with reference to Antiochus’ desecration, Jesus understood
the historical application of the phrase to Antiochus’ desecration only as a
pattern of the ultimate (eschatological) event. Citing Daniel’s
prophecy (some 200 years after the Antiochus’ desecration) with reference to
the still future “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14),
Jesus affirmed both His and Daniel’s awareness of the eschatological
application of the phrase. Jesus saw his message as a continuation of
the biblical prophets, and His frequent citations from Jeremiah and
Zechariah make it certain that Jesus and the disciples were evaluating their
generation in light of these prophecies. Therefore, just as Jesus
interpreted the events affecting the near judgment of the city of Jerusalem
(including the Temple) in AD 70 against the background of these prophecies,
He also spoke of the far (end time) events that would affect the city in
these terms. This can be demonstrated from Jesus’ “cleansing of the Temple”
which concerned the threat of ritual defilement to the Temple following
Jeremiah’s Temple sermon (Jeremiah 7) and cited eschatological texts in
Isaiah and Zechariah with respect to the Temple’s future state which lay
beyond such an act (the divine ideal).
This is in harmony with Jesus’ Olivet Discourse which also sets the Temple
in an eschatological context. When the disciples heard Jesus’ prediction of
the Second Temple’s destruction (Matthew 24:1-2; Mark 13:1-2; Luke 21:5-6)
they apparently connected such an event with the messianic advent at the end
of the age and asked what sign would mark this for the Jewish nation
(Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:22). The “sign”
Jesus gave them was that of Daniel’s “abomination of desolation”
(Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). This, then, was the signal event that would
indicate that the Jewish nation was nearing the time of messianic
deliverance and restoration, since the desecration of the Temple would begin
the persecution of the Jewish people (i.e., “great Tribulation,” Matthew
24:16-22; Mark 13:14b-20) that would demand the Messiah’s coming to bring
them redemption from their enemies (Matthew 24:30-31; Mark 13:26-27; Luke
21:28). Luke’s account does not include the “abomination of desolation” in
the Temple because this is an eschatological event and he has selectively
focused on the immediate concern of the disciples (note “about to take
place,” Luke 21:7) concerning when the predicted destruction of the Temple
(and Jerusalem) would occur. For this reason he also omits the end time
persecution of the “great Tribulation” (Greek thlipsis) which is connected
with this event, substituting the term “great distress” (Greek anagke) which
better describes the local invasion and trampling of the city (Luke
21:23-24), which was fulfilled in the Roman conquest of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The intent of the sign of Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” in Matthew
and Mark is to also place the context of the event and what follows in
Daniel’s seventieth week, the time of “the end that shall come” (Matthew
24:14), separating the period of “tribulations” or “birth pangs” (Matthew
24:6-12; Mark 13:7-9) from the “Tribulation” period (Matthew 24:21; Mark
13:19). Luke does this in Luke 21:24 by separating the event of Jerusalem’s
desolation (AD 70) and the times of the Gentiles (present age) from the time
when “the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”(end time). This event also
divides Daniel’s seventieth week into two divisions of lesser and greater
intensity following the pattern of the “midpoint” in Daniel 9:27 and its
application in Revelation 11:1-2, a time text which employs the “42 months”=
31/2 years or 1,260 days (cf. Daniel 12:11).
Preterists interpret the “abomination of desolation” (as they do most
prophetic events) in Daniel and the Olivet Discourse as having its ultimate
fulfillment in the events surrounding the destruction of the Temple in AD
70. However, the events deduced by Preterists from the events of the First
Revolt that culminated with the destruction of AD 70, do not match the
details in the “abomination of desolation” texts, which are required for
fulfillment. None of the incursions by Roman officials during this time
could be regarded as “abominations that caused desolation” since the
sacrificial system was not affected. Foreigners in the Temple may bring
about only desecration, but not defilement, and for this reason the Second
Temple was rebuilt after its desecration and destruction by the Babylonians
without the need of a purification ceremony (Ezra 3:2-13). Further, the
entrance of the Roman general Titus (who destroyed the Temple) occurred only
after the Sanctuary was already in flames and had been largely ruined and
after the Jewish sacrifices had ceased. This is important to note since the
“abomination of desolation” of which Daniel speaks and to which Jesus
alludes to, speak only of the cessation of sacrifice in the Temple, not of
its destruction.
With any interpretation except the eschatological, we are left with
unresolved details that either must be harmonized by reading the text in
other than a literal, historical, manner, or by dismissing details
altogether. The eschatological view also has the precedence of types that
await their anti-type to ultimately fulfill them. Moreover, Daniel’s
seventieth week, and especially its signal event of the "abomination of
desolation," appears to have influenced the literary structure of the Olivet
Discourse in the Synoptic gospels and the judgment section of the Book of
Revelation (chapters 6-19). Jesus’ interpretation of the order of the events
of the seventieth week in the context of prophetic history appears to
confirm an eschatological interpretation for Daniel 9:27. In Matthew 24:7-14
it is predicted that persecution, suffering, and wars would continue to the
end of the age, climaxing in a time of unparalleled distress, verses 21-22
(i.e., “the time of Jacob’s distress,” cf. Daniel 12:1; Jeremiah 30:7). Only
after these events does Jesus make reference to Daniel 9:27 (verse 15)
concerning the signal event of this time of Tribulation, “the desolating
abomination.” If the seventy weeks were to run sequentially, without
interruption, then why does Jesus place this intervening period before the
fulfillment of the events of the seventieth week? The text of Matthew in
particular reveals that Jesus’ preview of the future was to answer His
disciple’s questions concerning His second coming, and the end of the age
(Matthew 24:3). Jesus’ here explains why His coming is necessary (for divine
intervention and national repentance, verses 27-31; cf. Zechariah 12:9-10)
and when it will occur (“after the Tribulation of those days”, verse 29).
According to Matthew,
the events described in this period prior to the Messianic
advent could not have been fulfilled in AD 70 with the destruction of
Jerusalem, since these events usher in and terminate with the coming of
Messiah.
Although the phrase “abomination of desolation” does not appear in Paul’s
description of the end time desecration of the Temple in 2 Thessalonians
2:4, both context and allusions within the text evidently have this event in
view. For example, some uses of bdelugma (“abomination”) in the Septuagint
(in the Prophets) are paralleled by the word anomia (“lawlessness”) with
reference to idolatrous practices. Such usage in the Old Testament supports
the allusion to the “abomination of desolation” in 2 Thessalonians
2:3-4 where the figure who magnifies himself above every idol to “idolize”
himself (“display himself as god,” verse 4c) in the Temple is described as
“the man of lawlessness.” In fact, Paul’s explanation of this event serves
as a commentary on both Daniel’s “abomination of desolation” texts
(particularly Daniel 9:27) and Jesus’ statement of it as a “sign” in the
Olivet Discourse. Moreover, Paul’s use of the event to answer the same
time-related question of the end time asked by Jesus’ disciples further
affirms the eschatological interpretation of the “abomination of
desolation.” Paul’s eschatological context is revealed by his occasion for
writing the Thessalonian Church. It was to admonish Christians who had
abandoned the normal affairs of life in view of the imminency doctrine that
Paul had previously espoused (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). The erroneous
understanding concerning preparation for the events of the Last Days exposed
a specific prophetic confusion (which Paul calls a “deception,” verse 3a)
concerning this doctrine. To correct the notion that end time events were
already set in motion (verse 2), Paul explained that before the “appearance”
of the Messiah, there must first come the “appearance” of the Anti-Messiah
(verses 3-9). The signal event that will manifest the Anti-Messiah (or
Antichrist), referred to variously in this text as “the man of lawlessness,”
“the son of destruction” (verse 3b), and “that lawless one” (verse 8), is
the usurpation of the place of God’s Presence in the Temple (verse 4; cf.
Exodus 25:8). The result of this act will not only make manifest the figure
of the Antichrist, but also “the lie” (deification of the Antichrist,
Revelation 13:4-6, 15) that will mark his followers (Revelation 13:16-18)
and confirm them in the eschatological judgment that will attend the coming
of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:8-12).
The act of Temple desecration is introduced in verse 4 by the use of the
middle voice with its reflexive nuance to emphasize the autonomy of action:
“exalts himself.” The sphere of his self-elevation is specified as
“over every so-called god or object of worship.” While this might indicate a
superlative blasphemy of God such as in Revelation 13:6, the immediate
setting is the future [rebuilt] Jerusalem Temple, and so its sacred vessels
(“objects of worship”) are more in view (cf. 2 Chronicles 5:5-7; Hebrews
9:2-5). This would lend some support to the place of the “desolation” being
within the innermost sacred part of the Temple (Holy of Holies) where God’s
Presence was previously manifested (Exodus 25:22; 30:6; cf. Ezek. 43:1-7).
The “abomination,” however, is the Antichrist’s act of enthroning himself
in the place of deity to “display himself” (Greek, apodeiknunta)
as God (literally, “that he is God”). This blasphemous act fulfills Daniel’s
prediction that the Antichrist that “will exalt and magnify himself above
every god, and speak monstrous things against the God of gods” (Daniel
11:36) and with the Satanic background of Revelation 12:9, 12-17; 13:4-10)
has allusions to Isaiah 14:13-14 and Ezekiel 28:2-9 where the usurping
figures addressed have sought to “raise [their] throne above the stars of
God,” “make themselves like the Most High,” and declared “I am a god; I sit
in the seat of the gods.”
Despite the precedent of literal interpretation in Daniel and the Olivet
Discourse, which is clearly desecration of the historic Jewish Temple in
Jerusalem, historicists interpret 2 Thessalonians 2:4 in a non-literal
manner, taking “the Temple of God” metaphorically as a reference to “the
Church,” and the act of desecration by the “man of lawlessness” as apostasy
in the Church (based in part on their interpretation of the rare Greek term
apostasia in verse 3 as “spiritual apostasy”). However, writing to a
first-century audience at a time when the Temple was still standing, Paul’s
reference to “the Temple of God” could only mean one place, the Jewish
Temple in Jerusalem. Even so, there are additional reasons for rejecting the
symbolic interpretation and accepting a literal Temple (and therefore a
literal “abomination of desolation”) in this verse: (1) in the few places
where Paul used the Greek word naos (“Temple”) to mean something
other than the actual Holy Place within the Jerusalem (1 Corinthians 3:16;
6:19; 2 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 2:21), he always explained his special
meaning so that his readers would understand his metaphorical usage (which
still had reference to the Jerusalem Temple), (2) the word “Temple” has the
definite article (“the Temple”) in contrast to Paul’s metaphorical usage
where “Temple” is usually anartharous (“a temple),” and (3) “the
Temple of God” is the direct object of the verb “sits down” (Greek, kathisai),
a verb suggesting a definite locality, not an institution (such as the
church). If apostasy in the church in a symbolic sense were intended, Paul
would better have expressed this with a verb for “enthronement” or
“usurpation,” rather than a verb that referred to the literal act of “taking
a seat.”
