Abomination of Desolation



Bibliography: C. R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark, 1945; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971; W. L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, 1974.——JAM


ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION. This expression does not appear in this precise form in the Heb. OT though its origin is there. The idea is found four times, expressed in similar words (Dan 8:13; 9:27; 11:31 and 12:11). The exact expression cited as the title of this article appears twice in the NT (τό βδέλυγμα τη̂ς ἐρημώσεως) (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:4). Matthew quotes Jesus as asserting that it was “spoken of through Daniel the prophet.” The Gr. phrase is, indeed, quoted almost exactly from the LXX of Daniel 9:27 (as also Theodotion’s tr. which for centuries replaced the LXX for Daniel until recovery in modern times). Since Jesus’ reference to the abomination of desolation is derived straight from the OT, it is there one must go to find out what He might have intended to convey by the phrase.

The KJV renders four different Heb. nouns (tô'ēbâ, sheqes, shiqûs, and piggûl) “abomination,” and in the NT also the word bdélugma, referred to above. In addition there are two Heb. verbs rendered “to have in abomination” (shaqas in Piel and bā’ash in Niphal); also two verbs tr. “to be abominable” (zā’am and ta’ab). The Gr. NT also supplies the adjectives αθένιτος and βδελυκτός, G1008, “abominable” and a verb βδελύσσομαι, G1009, “to be abominable.” There is the surprising number of twelve Heb. and Gr. words involved one way or another with this concept. Like our own language the Heb. and Gr. languages of the Bible employ a variety of terms to express degrees and varieties of abhorrence. Some are related in derivation (as similarities of spelling suggest); some are not.



The KJV translates a Qal participle of זָעַם, H2404, (usually, to be angry) as “abominable” (Mic 6:10) expressing disgust at petty dishonesty.


When Jesus spoke of the “abomination of desolation which is spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (Dan 9:2, 18, 26), He has reference to an art consummately sacrilegious, one which utterly desolates (spiritually) some highly significant religious object or place. Those critical interpreters who deny predictive reality to any of the prophecies relate the four references in Daniel to the sacrilege committed by Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), pagan king of Syria, who sacrificed a sow on the holy altar before the Temple of Jerusalem, 165 b.c. Yet Jesus clearly places the event in the future. Certain evangelical authors have sought fulfillment in the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple together with subsequent erection of a pagan house of worship at the site by the Romans, later in the 1st cent. a.d. Many interpreters feel that Paul’s brief “apocalypse” of the final “man of sin” (2 Thess 2:8-12) is an extension of Daniel’s and Jesus’ prediction. Paul distinctly relates it to our Lord’s Second Advent. In this case an adequate understanding of both Daniel and Jesus, as well as of Paul, must be undertaken in connection with Biblical eschatology. Such is the view of the author of this article.

See various articles on Eschatology; Beast; Antichrist; Man of Sin; etc.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915)


1. The Historical Background: Since the invasion of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Jewish people, both of the Northern and of the Southern kingdom, had been without political independence. From the Chaldeans the rulership of Judea had been transferred to the Persians, and from the Persians, after an interval of 200 years, to Alexander the Great. From the beginning of the Persian sovereignty, the Jews had been permitted to organize anew their religious and political commonwealth, thus establishing a state under the rulership of priests, for the high priest was not only the highest functionary of the cult, but also the chief magistrate in so far as these prerogatives were not exercised by the king of the conquering nation. Ezra had given a new significance to the Torah by having it read to the whole congregation of Israel and by his vigorous enforcement of the law of separation from the Gentiles. His emphasis of the law introduced the period of legalism and finical interpretation of the letter which called forth some of the bitterest invectives of our Saviour. Specialists of the law known as "scribes" devoted themselves to its study and subtle interpretation, and the pious beheld the highest moral accomplishment in the extremely conscientious observance of every precept. But in opposition to this class, there were those who, influenced by the Hellenistic culture, introduced by the conquests of Alexander the Great, were inclined to a more "liberal" policy. Thus, two opposing parties were developed: the Hellenistic, and the party of the Pious, or the Chasidim, chacidhim (Hasidaeans, 1 Macc 2:42; 7:13), who held fast to the strict ideal of the scribes. The former gradually came into ascendancy. Judea was rapidly becoming Hellenistic in all phases of its political, social and religious life, and the "Pious" were dwindling to a small minority sect. This was the situation when Antiochus Epiphanes set out to suppress the last vestige of the Jewish cult by the application of brute force.

2. Antiochus Epiphanes: nodetitle, son of Antiochus the Great, became the successor of his brother, Seleucus IV, who had been murdered by his minister, Heliodorus, as king of Syria (175-164 BC). He was by nature a despot; eccentric and unreliable; sometimes a spendthrift in his liberality, fraternizing in an affected manner with those of lower station; sometimes cruel and tyrannical, as witness his aggressions against Judea. Polybius (26 10) tells us that his eccentric ideas caused some to speak of him as a man of pure motive and humble character, while others hinted at insanity. The epithet Epiphanes is an abbreviation of theos epiphanes, which is the designation given himself by Antiochus on his coins, and means "the god who appears or reveals himself." Egyptian writers translate the inscription, "God which comes forth," namely, like the burning sun, Horos, on the horizon, thus identifying the king with the triumphal, appearing god.

When Antiochus Epiphanes arose to the throne, Onias III, as high priest, was the leader of the old orthodox party in Judea; the head of the Hellenists was his own brother Jesus, or, as he preferred to designate himself, Jason, this being the Greek form of his name and indicating the trend of his mind. Jason promised the king large sums of money for the transfer of the office of high priest from his brother to himself and the privilege of erecting a gymnasium and a temple to Phallus, and for the granting of the privilege "to enroll the inhabitants of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch." Antiochus gladly agreed to everything. Onias was removed, Jason became high priest, and henceforth the process of Hellenizing Judea was pushed energetically. The Jewish cult was not attacked, but the "legal institutions were set aside, and illegal practices were introduced" (2 Macc 4:11). A gymnasium was erected outside the castle; the youth of Jerusalem exercised themselves in the gymnastic art of the Greeks, and even priests left their services at the altar to take part in the contest of the palaestra. The disregard of Jewish custom went so far that many artificially removed the traces of circumcision from their bodies, and with characteristic liberality, Jason even sent a contribution to the sacrifices in honor of Heracles on the occasion of the quadrennial festivities in Tyre.

3. The Suppression of the Jewish Cult: Under these conditions it is not surprising that Antiochus should have had both the inclination and the courage to undertake the total eradication of the Jewish religion and the establishment of Greek polytheism in its stead. The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the Sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death. The Jewish cult was set aside, and in all cities of Judea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month a search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the Law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death. In Jerusalem on the 15th of Chislev of the year 145 aet Sel, i.e. in December 168 BC, a pagan altar was built on the Great Altar of Burnt Sacrifices, and on the 25th of Chislev, sacrifice was brought on this altar for the first time (1 Macc 1:54,59). This evidently was the "abomination of desolation." The sacrifice, according to 2 Macc was brought to the Olympian Zeus, to whom the temple of Jerusalem had been dedicated. At the feast of Dionysus, the Jews were obliged to march in the Bacchanalian procession, crowned with laurel leaves. Christ applies the phrase to what was to take place at the advance of the Romans against Jerusalem. They who would behold the "abomination of desolation" standing in the holy place, He bids flee to the mountains, which probably refers to the advance of the Roman army into the city and temple, carrying standards which bore images of the Roman gods and were the objects of pagan worship.

Frank E. Hirsch