Matthew 24:15-16 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel – let the reader understand – then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (NIV).
For five hours this past Friday, I studied some commentaries at the wonderful library at Denver Seminary. I had a great day.
Perusing commentaries on such a challenging passage is interesting, because there are various views even among scholars with a high view of the sacredness and accuracy of the Bible. Yet the study got intense as I realized my disagreement with many of those sincere biblical scholars from back in the early 1900’s. The reason I felt so many were missing the correct interpretation regarding the “abomination” and the remainder of this passage, was due to their failure to stay rooted in the fact Jesus was answering two specific questions from His disciples.
As I offer you this special piece, I say upfront that I was a bit surprised by the interpretation I think is correct. Yet God’s faithfulness is revealed!!!
The disciples’ first question:
When will this happen?
What is “this?”
“This” is the destruction of the temple, as stated by Jesus as He was leaving the temple area, recorded in Matthew 24:2.
And the answer by Jesus to “When will this happen?”: “…when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation…’” (Matthew 24:15).
That event is also a striking point to signify when the terror would come to a point where fleeing was the hope for survival.
To understand this response by Jesus, we must address three more questions!
1.) Which “abomination” from Daniel is Jesus referring to?
2.) When did this “abomination” take place?
3.) What was the “abomination?”
1.) Which “abomination” from Daniel is Jesus referring to?
Jesus is referring to the “abomination that causes desolation” recorded in Daniel 9:27.
The “abominations” recorded in Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 12:11 were prophecies which had already been fulfilled, involving the desecration of the temple by a Greek ruler. (1)
2.) When did this “abomination” take place?
The angel Gabriel gave an epic message to Daniel, as recorded in the book of Daniel 9:24-27. And that message included a timeline, though using a time metaphor we must interpret. The NRSV translates the Hebrew as “Seventy weeks.” The NIV translates the Hebrew as “Seventy ‘sevens.’” This ancient Jewish metaphor of “week” designates one day as a year, thus a week as seven years. So 70 “weeks” is 490 years. Thus the period up to when the Anointed One is cut off is 483 years.
When did this 490 years start? Gabriel states: “From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem…” (Daniel 9:25).
I refrain from getting into the details on this, considering that certain sincere scholars devoted themselves to a study of this subject in years past, with their calculations being recorded in commentaries, some of which still sit on the shelves of theological libraries.
I will make two points: First, note the time starts not with the decree for rebuilding the temple, rather the decree for rebuilding Jerusalem.
Second, the calculation has challenges. For starters, the Israelites used a lunar calendar, not a solar calendar. The wild thing: In-spite of the variables, if you delve into this, plausible calculations bring us to the time of Christ!
3.) What was the “abomination?”
The desecration had to do with Titus. To put this all into context: The final “seven” took place from 66/67 A.D. to 73/74 A.D. (Scholars are not sure on the exact dates.) (Also, these dates include the period after the terrible fall of Jerusalem, which involved a small but a determined number of Jewish citizens who held out at Masada.)
Now that final seven years is separated a bit from the first 483 years, which ended around 27 A.D. (Our calendar is off by about six years, because it did not take into account leap years.) But the text of Daniel keeps it in the realm of the same age, thus 66/67 A.D. to 73/74 A.D. fits.
The prophet implies the “abomination” took place in the middle of the final seven years of this prophecy, which would have been the time the Roman military overtook the Israelite military. That specific Roman military commander was Titus, who was the son of the Roman Emperor Vespasianus. (Actually the father and son had the same name, so scholars call one by the last name and one by the first name.)
In 79 A.D., Titus would become the emperor, which is probably why Gabriel calls him in this context “the ruler who will come” (Daniel 9:26). Under the military lead of Titus the temple was destroyed, thus he put an end to “sacrifice and offering” at the temple. And there on the temple mount, Titus put up a statue of himself. (2)
A statue of Titus does not sound overly dramatic to me. Yet the temple was a place where there had been the special presence of God. For Titus to do so was claiming that he was God.
However, there is still a major outstanding question for me. Who did Titus make a covenant with? I do not know. History is a humbling field to me. Yet it is important.
Before moving forward, I must address the fact that since Jerusalem was being besieged by the Roman Empire for three plus years before the ransacking of Jerusalem, the wise time to flee would have been back in the early period of the Jewish Revolt. In knowing history, we know that all of those who fled to Masada ended up dying. People needed to flee early and flee far.
The abomination apparently was not meant to be the starting point for fleeing. The abomination was the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy, and Jesus was confirming that. We know this since the disciple Luke also recorded Jesus giving this discourse, and Luke included, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20).
The warning which Jesus gives in following verses is a huge warning to signal to those willing to listen to leave at a prudent time.
Jesus warned His followers, and anyone else who would listen!
Hunter Irvine
(1) G.E.P. Cox, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew: Introduction and Commentary
(London: SCM Press Ltd., 1952), 145-146.
(2) Ibid., 146.
