Matthew’s Abomination of Desolation

Introduction

In response to his disciples’ questions on the Mount of Olives, Jesus gives his Olivet Discourse (OD) addressing the coming destruction of the temple, his παρουσία, and the end of the age (Matt 24:3). ¹ As part of his response, Jesus says, “So when you see standing in the holy place, ‘the abomination of desolation’ [τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως] spoken of through the Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains” (Matt 24:15–16). ² This article, while not seeking to address all of the questions surrounding the enigmatic τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, aims to advance the ongoing scholarly debate slightly by interacting with the work of Michael P. Theophilos, who has written the latest monograph on the identity of Matthew’s τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. ³ As the discussion below seeks to demonstrate, Theophilos has made an important contribution by emphasizing how τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως would have been understood against the OT backdrop of Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness and the resulting First Jewish War in AD 66–74. ⁴ Theophilos’s argument is similar to others who argue that it is the Jewish people themselves who committed the abomination in the first century. In addition to a critique of some of these arguments, I briefly make a positive argument for an interpretation that differs in some respects from Theophilos but also includes some of his strengths. To accomplish both of these goals, we will (1) briefly review the state of the question, (2) examine the literary context of the passage, and (3) take a closer look at the language of the immediate context in and around 24:15. This article assumes that the Evangelist accurately records Jesus’s teaching (his ipsissima vox) and that our Lord, sitting on the Mount decades before the Jewish War, is accurately telling his disciples what will occur in the future. ⁵ In Matthew 24:36, Jesus reminds us that, speaking as a human prophet, his knowledge was limited. Therefore, there are some answers that we might want that he does not give. However, since he was truly God’s prophet and even “God with us,” what he did say was without error.

Brief Summary of the State of the Question

The proposed options regarding τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως may be grouped by commonalities and quickly narrowed to a few that are most likely. ⁶

Ambiguous Referent

Some have suggested that Matthew was intentionally ambiguous (Option #1). ⁷ However, as Theophilos rightly concludes, it “seems highly dubious that an evangelist would include something in their gospel if they did not have something quite specific in mind.” ⁸ Furthermore, unless one is willing to argue that Jesus is talking at this point in the discourse about something that is not a sign of the “end” (more on this possibility below), it seems that he would have had to have something specific in mind. Signs only function if they are specific and noticeable. However, before turning to those who have argued for a specific referent, we should note that some of those who argue for a non-specific referent believe that it was a coming desecration that is undone or resolved by the coming of the Messianic kingdom. For example, Wellhausen argues, correctly in my opinion, that the abomination was a mysterious and future desecration of the temple, which will signal the beginning of the end (an “end” that is not a moment but an extended period—“Das Ende ist kein Moment, sondern eine Periode”), but will eventually lead, not to permanent destruction of the city and the nation, but to the salvation of Jerusalem and the temple, and the gathering of the Diaspora into the Messianic kingdom. ⁹

Roman Referents before the Jewish War

Various arguments have been made for something specific from the first century. Some (Option #2) point to the attempt by Gaius or Caligula to place a statue of himself in the Jewish temple (Ant. 18.8.2 §§261–268). ¹⁰ However, the execution of this order was delayed due to strong Jewish opposition, and Gaius’s subsequent death in AD 41 meant the statue was never placed in the temple (Ant. 18.8.3–9 §§269–309). ¹¹ Therefore, this interpretation is not possible unless one is willing to argue that the original saying (whether it came from our Lord or a later writer) did not come to pass as predicted. If, like Theophilos, one finds it “odd that an evangelist would include a detail that was unfulfilled,” ¹² you could (1) either argue that the Evangelist is writing after τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως but did not identify it with Gaius’s actions (this is the option taken by many, including Theophilos) or (2) you could argue that the saying is something still future, even from the perspective of the Evangelist writing the Gospel. This same critique applies to those who have suggested that 24:15 refers to something committed during Pilate’s time as prefect of Judea (Option #3). Pilate brought ensigns with the image of the Emperor into Jerusalem (J.W. 2.9.1–3 §§167–174; Ant. 18.3.1 §§55–59), ¹³ but the standards were quickly removed after a strong protest, so it did not directly lead to the time of trouble described in 24:16–21. On what appears to be a different occasion, Pilate placed some shields in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem having an inscription to the emperor, greatly offending a large number of the city’s inhabitants. The shields were eventually moved to Augustus’s temple in Caesarea (Philo, Embassy §§299–305). So again, Pilate’s action, while offensive, did not lead to the desolation of the temple or an extended time of distress. In addition, most now recognize that the original Danielic passages do not necessarily refer to an idol or image, as Options #2 and #3 assume. ¹⁴

Roman Referents during the Jewish War

Looking for something that led more directly to the destruction of the temple and a time of trouble, others have identified various actions of the Romans during the Jewish War. ¹⁵ Dyer suggests that τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is a reference to coins with Vespasian image, which began to circulate shortly before he became emperor in late AD 69 (Option #5). ¹⁶ Judeans who saw these coins would have had time to flee before Titus began his siege of Jerusalem. However, would enough Judeans have seen these coins before the siege began for it to be a meaningful sign? Also, as Theophilos notes, would coins fit the description of “standing in the holy place”? ¹²

This last question also presents a challenge to those who equate the abomination with Titus’s approaching or already encircling armies (Option #6). ¹⁷ A similar difficulty confronts those who suggest that Luke 21:20’s “Jerusalem being surrounded by armies” has defined the abomination for us. ¹⁸ These options (i.e., Option #6 or things done by the Romans leading up to the temple’s destruction) have the advantage of being things that (1) actually came to pass, (2) led to the destruction of the temple, and (3) led to a time of extreme suffering for the people of Israel. However, could they be described as “standing in the holy place?” And, if you respond, as many do, that perhaps Jesus has in mind the entrance of Titus into the sanctuary or the worship of Roman standards in the temple complex following the capture of the temple mount (Option #7; see J.W. 6.6.1 §316), does this allow any time to flee as Jesus instructs in Matthew 24:16? ¹⁹ It would seem that in addition to the three necessary components above, advantages of Option #6, one would also need to include an opportunity for those in Judea to flee when they see something sacrilegious “standing” in the temple.

Antichrist or Eschatological Tyrant as the Referent

Therefore, many throughout church history have identified Matthew’s τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως with the Antichrist (Option #8). ²⁰ Irenaeus (c. 130–c. 200), in a lengthy discussion regarding the coming Antichrist, identifies him not only with Matthew 24:15 but also with the “man of lawlessness” of 2 Thessalonians 2:3, the “little horn” of Daniel 7, and the “fierce-looking king” of Daniel 8:23 (Against Heresies 5.25.1–5). ²¹ Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–c. 235) appears also to identify the abomination with the Antichrist and place the passage alongside 2 Thessalonians (Antichrist 62–63). Hillary of Poitiers (c. 310–c. 367) believes that this interpretation is self-evident based on the testimony of other Scriptures. This view not only has the benefit of fitting the context of Matthew’s OD but also seems to be supported by passages throughout the canon. However, as is often pointed out, this option sits awkwardly at first glance with the disciples’ opening question, which was made in response to Jesus’s statement regarding the destruction of the temple. If we now know that Jesus’s predictions regarding the destruction of the temple were fulfilled during the Jewish War, how can his τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως refer to something else that has not yet occurred?

Jewish Referents during the Jewish War

Therefore, seeking something that is more closely connected to the Jewish War but also recognizing the tensions with the usual Roman options, others have argued that τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως was something committed by the Jewish people themselves in Jerusalem during the War (Option #10). For example, Balabanksi argues that the installation of the simpleton Phannias as the high priest through a lottery (J.W. 4.3.8 §155) fulfilled the OD’s “cryptic reference to a man who begins a process of standing where he should not be.” ²² She points to (1) Josephus’s description of the revolutionaries’ actions as a pollution or sacrilege and a fulfillment of prophecy (cf. J.W. 4.3.10 §163; 4.5.3 §§387–88) and (2) the connection to covenant unfaithfulness in the Danielic passages behind τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. ²³ This option has the advantage of allowing time for people to flee the city. ²⁴ If Phannias was thrust into the high priesthood in the spring of 68 (there is some debate over the precise date), this may have led to Jerusalem’s Christians fleeing to the wilderness for three and a half years, returning to the city in the summer of 71. ²⁵ Rather than pointing to the appointment of Phannias, Quarles recently argues that the temple’s desecration likely began when the Zealots turned the temple into their own fortress during the bloody civil war that raged within Jerusalem following the overthrow of the priestly aristocracy. ²⁶ Theophilos’s thesis is similar to those that point to the actions of the revolutionaries. However, he sees Israel herself as the abomination and the Romans and the destruction of AD 70 as the resulting desolation brought on by her covenant unfaithfulness, specifically the nation’s rejection of Jesus as the Messiah. ²⁷

Multiple Referents

Finally, it has also been suggested that 24:15 has multiple referents (Option #11). For example, Hagner sees the abomination as having some reference to the events of AD 70 but also suggests that this “does not prevent the elastic symbol from also being applied to something lying in the future. But that possibility is not in the Evangelist’s mind.” ²⁸ However, Hagner’s statement could just as easily be inverted to say: “There is nothing that prevents this elastic symbol from being applied to something now lying in the past [from our perspective]. But that possibility is not in the Evangelist’s mind.” Based on what Jesus says in Matthew 24:36, it seems incorrect to assume that Jesus must know that the temple will be destroyed long before his return. And, unless we assume a late date for Matthew, it seems wrong to assume that Matthew also separates the coming judgment from Jesus’s return. That Jesus/Matthew had a specific sign in mind, which was like some other event that would occur, does not necessarily mean that 24:15 directly addresses the earlier of these two events. They could just as easily be addressing the second event in a typological pattern. ²⁹ Furthermore, the sign of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως can only be a sign of something specific if itself is specific. Unless we have a clear indication in the text that we are supposed to think otherwise, it seems that two referents that we now know to be separated by millennia cannot both be a sign of the arrival of the same event. One specific referent must itself be the sign, while any types or precursors of that sign must be considered as pointers or confirmation that the true sign itself will one day arrive. So, one way to approach the question of Matthew’s τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is to ask, “What is it a sign of in Matthew’s OD?” and “Which option presented above would best serve as a sign of that event?”

Literary Structure of Matthew 24–25 ³⁰

With Theophilos and others, I would argue that Jesus’s lament over Jerusalem in 23:37–39, along with the trilogy of parables in chapter 21, provides an important backdrop to Matthew’s OD. ³¹ Judgment is coming upon the nation for its rejection of Jesus as Messiah, and Jesus in 24:2 predicts once again that this judgment will include the destruction of the temple. However, the question is whether that judgment is limited to what will occur within a few decades in the Jewish War. I would argue that the literary context of the OD points in a different direction.

Two Opening Questions (24:3)

In response to Jesus’s statement regarding the temple in 24:2, the disciples ask Jesus about (1) when ταῦτα (“these things” as in ESV) “will happen,” about (2) the “sign of your coming” (τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας) and (3) about “the end of the age” (συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος; 24:3). These last two elements are modified by one article and linked with καί, indicating that this is one question concerning two closely related events. ³² The nouns παρουσίας and συντελείας are likely objective genitives (i.e., one sign pointing to both the παρουσία and the “end”). ³³ Therefore, they are ultimately asking two questions—(1) a “When?” question (πότε) regarding the timing (ἔσται) of “these things” (plural ταῦτα, as opposed to the NIV’s “this”) and (2) a “What?” question (τί) regarding one sign (τὸ σημεῖον) that signals both the παρουσία and the “end of the age.” Three distinct events are being referenced, but the final two appear to be closely linked in the disciples’ mind, and I think it is fair to assume that the first question with its plural ταῦτα also includes the two elements of the second question. The disciples’ question is the first of many allusions in the OD to Daniel 12, here to Daniel 12:6–7. ³⁴ “A man who posed Daniel’s question at the beginning of the Christian era could go to the Book of Daniel and there also find sayings as to what ‘all these things’ were.” ³⁵ However, Matthew, unlike Mark, has not only depended on our knowledge of Daniel 12 but has also unpacked the ταῦτα in 24:3b and let us know that they include the παρουσία and συντελεία. There is no indication in the text that the two questions are not talking about the same complex of events.

While it is sometimes suggested that three questions are asked or that perhaps one or more of the questions are not answered in Matthew’s account, ³⁶ it seems better to see these two questions both answered in the material that follows. A comparison of the Synoptic accounts reveals that the Evangelists are not providing an exact transcript of every word that Jesus spoke on this occasion. Therefore, if Matthew chose to record two questions, why would he choose not to answer one of them? Instead, Jesus in Matthew appears to answer both questions in reverse order, forming a chiasm. ³⁷ In 24:4–35, he answers the question regarding the sign (notice the emphasis on things seen and experienced in this section), then following the transitional statement in 24:36 (περὶ δέ), Jesus proceeds to answer the timing question through the end of the discourse with an answer that Christians have too often ignored (“about that day or hour no one knows,” 24:36; cf. “time,” 24:43; “long time,” 24:48; 25:5, 19). This inverted response allows Jesus to address the most pressing issue first. As in the parables of the soils, the time between his First and Second Coming is a matter of great concern, as it could lead to deception, persecution, and apathy (cf. 24:4–14). Therefore, before describing the “end,” Jesus warns his disciples about the intervening years. The ethical implications of the discourse are fronted for emphasis.

The Meaning of τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος in 24:3

Since the verse that we are examining occurs within this first section (24:4–35), we will look more closely at the elements within the question that prompt the response found in those verses. Because of its importance in the overall interpretation of the passage, the meaning of παρουσία has been debated. For example, Theophilos, who sees no indication in the OD that Jesus is describing “end-time eschatology,” argues that the παρουσία refers to the destruction of AD 70. ³⁸ The word can refer to (1) “the state of being present” and be glossed as presence (e.g., 2 Cor 10:10; Phil 2:12) or (2) “arrival as the first stage in presence” and be glossed as coming or advent (e.g., 2 Cor 7:6; Phil 1:26), with the latter fitting the context here. ³⁹ When it refers to Christ (as the possessive adjective σῆς indicates here), it is “nearly always of his Messianic Advent in glory to judge the world at the end of this age.” ⁴⁰ Theophilos argues that the παρουσία here in Matthew is “the Son of Man’s presence” represented by “the invading armies of the Romans” and that the possessive adjective can be explained since the Son of Man is often representative of a larger group of people (e.g., in 1 Enoch). ⁴¹ However, while this may be true of the Son of Man and the community of the righteous in some texts, it seems awkward for the pagan Roman armies to be so closely identified with Jesus that their arrival could be referred to as “your coming.”

What about the “end of the age”? Can it also refer to the Jewish War? Theophilos points to instances in the LXX where συντέλεια refers to military destruction (e.g., Judg 20:40; Ezra 9:14). ⁴² However, it is the context that determines the meaning here in Matthew. The collocation of συντέλεια and αἰών occurs three other times in Matthew. It is the time at which his angels remove sinners from the kingdom and cast them into a furnace (13:39, 49). In Matthew’s closing line, it is the point to which Jesus promises to remain with his disciples (28:20). Therefore, this second question is asking about Jesus’s triumphant arrival (παρουσία) to end or close (συντέλεια) this age and begin the next. ⁴³ This conclusion is consistent with the Danielic background of the OD. In the OG of Daniel, συντέλεια is a technical term for a definite “end,” ⁴⁴ appearing six times in Daniel 9:26–27 and ten times in Daniel 11:35–12:13, two of the passages behind Matthew’s use of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. In Daniel, it does not refer to the end of history, as interpreters often mistakenly assume that the Antichrist interpretation of 24:15 requires. Instead, it is equivalent to the Day of the Lord (recall Wellhausen’s extended period above) and leads to a restored sanctuary and an everlasting kingdom. Therefore, if Matthew gives us other indications that he is telling the same story as Daniel and does not give us any indications that he is using συντέλεια differently than that OT prophet, it seems reasonable to assume that Matthew is also speaking of the end of this present age and the arrival of the Messianic age to come. ⁴⁵

The Referent of ταῦτα πάντα in 24:2 and ταῦτα in 24:3

One could plausibly argue that the repetition of πάντα ταῦτα in 24:8, 33, and 34 limits this section (24:4–34) specifically to Jesus’s statement regarding the temple complex in 24:2. However, Jesus’s statement in 24:2 may be understood to refer to more than the temple’s destruction. Furthermore, the disciples’ questions in 24:3 indicate that they understand Jesus’s prediction in 24:2 regarding the temple’s destruction to reference the end of the age as in Zechariah 14. Thus, they appear to be thinking of a complex of events. It begs the question to assume that the plural ταῦτα in 24:3 must refer exclusively to the temple’s destruction. The temple is not even explicitly mentioned in the question. Furthermore, it is anachronistic for us to assume that the disciples ask specifically about the events that we now know occurred in the Jewish War when they had no way of separating that judgment from everything included in ταῦτα πάντα.

Jesus’s Response to the Second Question in 24:4–34

Jesus begins his response to the second question with a general warning (v. 4) followed by an explanation of that warning (vv. 5–8), where he describes things that are not signs of the end of the age. Following this, Matthew introduces a new section in verse 9 with τότε, but it is not clear whether the material coincides with the events of verses 4–8 or occurs after those “beginning of birth pains.” ⁴⁶ Most view verses 9–14 as a continuation of the same period as verses 4–8, and this seems best. ⁴⁷ If verse 9 describes the same time as verses 5–8, by the end of verses 9–14, the story has progressed further than the “beginning of labor pains,” and the “reader has mentally come closer, near to the very end.” ⁴⁸ Moving from the “beginning” to the “end” seems to give this impression inevitably. The concluding καὶ τότε ἥξει τὸ τέλος then “stands as the counterpart to the cautionary statement that ‘not yet is the end’” in verse 6. ⁴⁹ This reading corresponds to Matthew 13’s picture of a long time in which the word is sown like seeds, and those who accept it live among the “sons of the evil one.” The repetition of “all nations” in 24:9, 14 provides further cohesion to the unit and highlights the unique situation of Jesus’s disciples. Rather than being a specific reference to either the Jewish War or the Second Coming, it is best to see verses 4–14 to be a general description of the entire interadvental period. “The things enumerated are far too general and vague to serve as signs for any definite event. Truth to tell, was there ever an epoch in which these things were totally absent? In which there were no false prophets, no wars or rumors of wars, no earthquakes, no scandals or persecutions?” ⁵⁰

The second-person references that are scattered throughout the section do not necessarily mean that the apostles live to see all of the events described, for as Jerome put it, the “persona of all believers is designated by the apostles.” ⁵¹ Therefore, the use of the second-person plural ἴδητε (“you see”) in verse 15 should not also be used as an objection to the Antichrist view. ⁵² Interpreters have noted for a long time that the disciples in Matthew’s Gospel are representative of all of Jesus’s followers. This phenomenon is made more explicit in Mark’s OD, where Jesus concludes, “What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’” (13:37).

Another difficulty with the Antichrist view of 24:15 is that it appears to leave the disciples’ inquiry regarding the temple’s destruction unanswered in Matthew’s OD. Even though their ταῦτα in verse 3 likely includes more than this coming destruction (thus their question regarding the παρουσία and “the end of the age”), it likely does not include less than that imminent destruction since Jesus’s statement regarding πάντα ταῦτα in verse 2 is coupled with his prediction regarding the temple’s stones. However, with hindsight, we can now say that the Jewish War was one of the coming “wars and rumors of wars” and clashes of “kingdoms against kingdom” that would appear to be the end of the age when it was being experienced but was in fact only “the beginning of birth pains” (vv. 5–8). This also seems to be the approach of Hilary who includes the apostolic age and the destruction of AD 70 in his discussion of this section before moving to verse 15, which he believes gives a sign of Jesus’s “future advent.” ⁵³ When the disciples ask their question, they assume that this coming destruction will be followed immediately by the royal arrival of the Messiah and the close of the age. However, Jesus’s response begins with a warning that things that merely appear to be the end arrive first.

Matthew 24:15–31 may be divided into (1) 24:15–22, (2) 24:23–28, and (3) 24:29–31, as indicated by the presence of the conjunctions οὖν (v. 15) and τότε (v. 23) and the phrase εὐθέως δὲ μετὰ in verse 29. ⁵⁴ Following the two sections on non-signs (vv. 5–8 and vv. 9–14), a shift occurs with the ὅταν οὖν ἴδητε in verse 15, where Jesus begins describing a specific sign, τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, which heralds the arrival of an unprecedented tribulation for God’s people (vv. 21–22). ⁵⁵ While 24:4–14 describes signs that characterize the entire time before Jesus’s return and, therefore, are not necessarily indicative of the end of the age, the signs in verses 15ff are the “events of the end itself.” ⁵⁶ In verses 23–28, Jesus warns his disciples about false messiahs and false prophets during this “great distress” (v. 21). These verses are best understood as a parenthesis contrasting the genuine return of Christ with false announcements of his arrival. Finally, in verses 29–31, Jesus describes his physical return to gather his chosen people and concludes his answer to the second question with a short parable in verses 32–35 regarding the signs (not timing) just described. Many who approach the question of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως in 24:15 assume, as does Theophilos, that Jesus’s statement in that parable regarding “this generation” (v. 34), along with the parallel statement in 23:36, sets a time frame for the fulfillment of Jesus’s words within the lifetime of his listeners. ⁵⁷ This is one reason for looking for a fulfillment of 24:15 in the first century. However, Matthew, like Josephus, is more likely using γενεά throughout his Gospel in the sense of “family” (e.g., Wars 2.467; 5.512; 6.405), which includes but is not limited to Jesus’s contemporaries. ⁵⁸

A Closer Look at Matthew 24:15–31

Five factors point to the sign in verse 15, as opposed to the things described in verses 4–14, being the answer to the disciples’ request for a sign in verse 3. ⁵⁹ First, the sign in verse 15 is a singular event as opposed to the complex of events described in verses 4–14. Second, the sign in verse 15 is something that the disciples of Jesus can see. The things in verses 4–14 are things they might merely hear of and have to endure. Third, the sign in verse 15 is associated with the temple, which points back to Jesus’s original prediction in verse 2 that prompted the disciples’ request for a sign. Fourth, the intertextual evidence in the passage indicates that the “abomination of desolation” was “understood as a person or event that profanes the temple and eventuates in its destruction, which is precisely what the disciples ask about” ⁶⁰ The following section will examine the nature and OT background of the sign in verse 15 in order to evaluate the proposed options for its referent.

The Language and Background of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (v. 15)

The modifying τῆς ἐρημώσεως is likely, Theophilos argues, a genitive of result: τὸ βδέλυγμα (“abomination”) causes a “desolation.” ⁶¹ Since the “abomination” occurs in the “holy place” or temple and since Jesus had just predicted that “your house,” i.e., the temple, would be “left to you desolate” (ἔρημος), it is reasonable to conclude that it is the temple in Jerusalem which is left desolate as a result of an abomination.

OT Prophetic Background

With Theophilos, I would acknowledge that “desolation” was a common way for the OT prophets to describe God’s judgment on Israel within history (e.g., Isa 1:7–9; Jer 9:12; see also 4Q179). So, the choice of ἐρήμωσις in a context regarding the temple likely does point to a divine judgment on Israel. But what is the specific abomination in 24:15? Theophilos is correct that an examination of the collocation of the cognates of βδέλυγμα and ἐρήμωσις within the same verse in the LXX reveals at least two passages that point to Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness (Jer 51:22 [44:22 MT]; Ezek 33:29), and if a pairing within a chapter can be included, leading to many results, Jeremiah 7:10, 30, 34 seems especially relevant. ⁶² Matthew has already quoted from Jeremiah 7:11 in 21:13, and there is a widely-recognized thematic connection between Jeremiah’s temple speech and the material that Jesus delivers in Matthew 21:18ff leading up to the announcement that the “den of robbers,” that is, the temple, would once again fall. Therefore, read against the backdrop of Jeremiah and Ezekiel’s pronouncements regarding Israel’s unfaithfulness, there are good reasons to argue that Matthew 24:15’s “abomination of desolation” might also be connected to Israel’s unfaithfulness. However, would not the acceptance of a false messiah after having rejected the genuine Messiah also qualify as covenant unfaithfulness?

The Language of “Standing” (ἑστός)

Three arguments are usually given in support of the Antichrist view. First, as discussed further below, the Danielic background of Matthew 24 supports the Antichrist view. Second, Paul’s teaching in 2 Thessalonians, a passage with some verbal parallels and many thematic connections to Matthew 24, supports this interpretation (we will return to this). ⁶³ Third, the participle ἑστός (“standing”) is often pointed to as evidence that the “abomination” is a person. In response, the verb ἵστημι has a wide range of meanings and does not necessarily indicate a particular posture or personal referent. ⁶⁴ Therefore, even when considering the Markan parallel with its masculine ἑστηκότα (“standing”), Theophilos is correct in suggesting that this does not require a personal referent. ⁶⁵ The masculine participle could also conceivably refer to a statue or an image, and in the minds of the Gospel’s original readers, likely anticipated “some form of emperor worship within the Jewish temple, analogous to what Antiochus IV attempted and what the Roman emperors expected.” ⁶⁶ Therefore, while the reference might not be to the Antichrist (or Titus) personally standing in the temple, it does not rule out a religious icon of some kind placed in the temple, something that did not occur during the Jewish War until after the temple had already fallen to the Romans. It would also plausibly allow for the Antichrist to commit another abomination, such as the cessation of the daily sacrifices and/or the demand that he be worshiped in the temple. However, Theophilos’s argument that the “abomination” is ultimately Israel’s rejection of Jesus is difficult to reconcile with Matthew’s statement that τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is “standing in the holy place.” ⁶⁷ The “abomination” must not only be concrete enough that it can, in some sense, be located within the temple complex, but it also must be something that can be seen and thus act as a sign that flight is necessary (“when you see…flee”). Quarles, as part of his argument that the Zealot’s desecration of the temple constitutes τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως suggests that the blood (cf. Matt 23:35) spilled in the temple complex could be referred to as “standing in the holy place.” ⁶⁸ However, even if we concede that ἵστημι in this context refers to “standing” blood (i.e., blood that was moving but has now stopped “from movement…in a stationary position” as in Matt 2:9), ⁶⁹ Mark’s use of the masculine pronoun seems an awkward way to refer to “standing” blood. Furthermore, would a reader of Daniel be expecting “standing” blood as a unique sign of the end? More importantly, the trial that the Jewish people endured throughout Palestine during the Jewish War does not seem to match the description of events in Matthew 24:21ff.

Interpreters can make the participle, including Mark’s masculine ἑστηκότα, fit various conclusions. Therefore, the gender or even tense form of the participle likely cannot be used as an argument one way or the other. However, this particular verb could have been chosen because, in Jeremiah’s temple speech, he indicted his countrymen for coming and standing (וַעֲמַדְתֶּם; ἔστητε LXX) before God in his house after having committed grievous sins (7:10). The passage goes on to say that the people feel impervious to judgment despite committing “all these detestable things” (כָּל־הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה; πάντα τὰ βδελύγματα ταῦτα LXX) because of the security they believe the house of God provides for them—they are treating the temple like a hideout or a “den” for “robbers” (Jer 7:11). Similarly, Jesus here in the OD refers to something or someone standing in the temple, which is, in fact, a βδέλυγμα and will lead to desolation (cf. “the land will become desolate,” Jer 7:34). ⁷⁰ That this is an intentional connection to Jeremiah is more likely since Matthew, beginning in 21:13’s allusion to Jeremiah’s “den of robbers,” has contained many allusions to Jeremiah 7–8’s temple speech as Jesus once again indicts the leaders of the nation in the temple complex. ⁷¹ In Jeremiah’s speech, “the survivors of this evil nation (הַמִּשְׁפָּחָה הָֽרָעָה הַזֹּאת; τῆς γενεᾶς ἐκείνης LXX; note the use of γενεά here) will prefer death to life” in the coming exile (8:3). In Jesus’s speech, he promises that this nation (ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη) will not “pass away” until everything described in his discourse is accomplished (Matt 24:34).

The Background of Daniel 12

Returning to the Danielic background (“through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand”), ⁷² it is widely recognized that Jesus’s reference to Daniel points to at least Daniel 11:31 (βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων) and 12:11 (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως), and perhaps Daniel 9:27 (βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων) which all contain a similar phrase. However, not only is Daniel 12:11 the only exact lexical match to the Old Greek (OG) version of Daniel, but this specific verse is also most likely the one Matthew is evoking because other “allusions to Daniel 11:40–12:13 surround this reference to the abominations of desolation.” ⁷³ There is a typology within the prophecy of Daniel where the abominations of Antiochus IV (11:31; cf. 8:13) foreshadow a greater abomination that occurs just before the resurrection of the dead (12:11–13). Jesus and his ideal first-century readers would have known that Daniel’s sixth-century BC prophecies regarding Antiochus had come to pass in the second-century BC as predicted, so they would have been looking for the antitype also to be fulfilled in the future. If Daniel 12:11 is the source of Jesus’s saying, then τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως in Matthew is best understood, as is the case in Daniel 12:11, as an eschatological event associated with Israel’s restoration following judgment. Daniel 9:27 seems to suggest that there would be an intervening installment between this type and antitype, an installment that we now know was fulfilled in the Jewish War. However, the disciples’ question in Matthew 24:3 and the content of Jesus’s response demonstrate that they are focused on the final installment because that is the one that is connected to the Messiah’s triumphal arrival and the close of this evil age.

If Jesus/Matthew is referencing Daniel 12:11, which option regarding τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is best supported? Theophilos argues that Daniel 12:11 describes the actions of Antiochus IV and that, in an “ironic reversal,” Matthew has applied the passage typologically to disobedient Israel. ⁷⁴ However, there are better reasons for understanding the king in Daniel 11:36ff to be an eschatological tyrant, likely a Jewish king, but still a specific ruler who appears just before Israel’s restoration (see below). Furthermore, Theophilos assumes that similar references to a desolating sacrilege in Daniel 9, 11, and 12 must all refer to the same event, and this assumption is important for his argument. ⁷⁵ However, if the sixth-century BC prophet could accurately prophesy regarding the Seleucid tyrant in Daniel 11:21–35, he could also prophesy regarding an eschatological tyrant in 11:36ff who arrives at the end of this age. Thus, the two tyrants and their actions can be parallel without being identical. Only a presupposition against genuine predictive prophecy in Daniel 11–12 would make this typological connection within Daniel between two similar tyrants impossible.

It is widely recognized that Daniel 11:21–35 describes Antiochus’s career and desolation of the Jewish temple in 167 BC (the βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως in v. 31). This connection was made as early as the second century BC by 1 Maccabees, which uses the exact phrase (1.54). Those who follow the Maccabean hypothesis for the dating of Daniel typically argue that Daniel 11:36ff continues the description of Antiochus, with verses 40–45 being an inaccurate prediction of that tyrant’s death written before his death takes place. ⁷⁶ However, among those who accept an earlier date for the book of Daniel, it is commonly argued that 11:36 switches to an eschatological tyrant. ⁷⁷

Several factors support the conclusion that Daniel 11:36ff switches to an eschatological perspective distinct from the life of Antiochus IV described previously, thus making Theophilos’s conclusion regarding Matthew 24:15 unlikely. First, even many who do not argue for the Antichrist view recognize a change of perspective in verse 36. For example, according to Keil, the Jewish scholars Ibn Ezra, Jacchiades, and Abarbneel understood the king in verses 36ff to be Constantine the Great, while Rabbi Solomon understood the passage to be a general reference to the Roman Empire. ⁷⁸ Similarly, and despite acknowledging that most interpreters of his days understood the passage as a reference to the Antichrist, Calvin thought verses 36ff described the Roman Republic and Empire. ⁷⁹ More recently, the Roman view has been argued by Parry, who suggests that verses 36–45 predict the Jewish War. ⁸⁰ Although a different view is argued here, all these demonstrate that others have seen a shift in perspective in verse 36. Second, the overall structure of 11:2–12:4 supports a shift in the subject in 11:36. ⁸¹ 11:2–12:4 is divided into four subsections, each held together by the use of catchwords: 11:2; 11:3–4; 11:5–35; 11:36–12:4. ⁸² Each section features a particular king or group of kings. Furthermore, the section that concludes at 11:35 also brings the narrative “until the time of the end,” which is also the subject of Matthew’s OD. Verse 36 skips ahead to this “end” (as does Matt 24:15 following 24:14) and introduces a new king by describing him in verses 36–38. If Antiochus were still in view, there would be no need to introduce him as he has already been described in detail in verses 21–35. Third, the description of the “king” in verses 36–45 does not match the details of Antiochus’s life. ⁸³ Instead, the statement that this “king” will “show no regard for the gods of his ancestors” is likely an indication that he is an Israelite. ⁸⁴ It at least rules out one as religious as Antiochus IV. Thus, unless one assumes the writer is mistaken in his description, the “king” in 11:36ff is someone other than Antiochus IV. It is during the time of this coming Antiochus-like king that there “will be a time of distress such as not happened from the beginning of nation until then” (Dan 12:1), and his “desolation” begins the countdown of days leading to the blessings of the kingdom (12:11–12). Apart from a prior commitment to the Maccabean date of Daniel, there is no reason to conclude, as does Theophilos, that Matthew’s mention of Daniel in 24:15 establishes “the primary referent with which he was to compare Israel, namely Antiochus IV.” ⁸⁵ Instead, it is better to see a comparison already made within Daniel between Antiochus and Antichrist, and Matthew/Jesus is arguably speaking of the latter of the two in 24:15.

As was already hinted at above, it is entirely possible that AD 70 should now be viewed as a type of this eschatological desolation in Daniel 12:11—an installment between Antiochus and Antichrist. For example, Jonathan Edwards plausibly argued that the book of Daniel itself set up this typology by referencing the desolation caused by Antiochus IV (Dan 8:11–13; 11:31), by the Romans during the Jewish War (Dan 9:27), and by Antichrist (Dan 12:11). ⁸⁶ Even if one accepts Edwards’s conclusions, the middle step in this typological pattern, the Jewish War, can only be recognized in hindsight. The translation and interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27 is notoriously difficult, even with the benefit of hindsight. ⁸⁷ It must have been even more difficult for anyone hearing Jesus’s words prior to the Jewish War to place Daniel 9 within a chronology of coming events. In Matthew, Jesus is giving his prediction in AD 33 (or less likely 30), and we should allow for the possibility, based on his words in 24:36, that he does not know all the details of the future, including the details of the Jewish War or its timing, but is instead looking forward to the Day of the Lord campaign against Jerusalem predicted in Zechariah 14. If, with hindsight, we can see that the Jewish nation failed to repent and the horrors of the Jewish War ensued, this does not necessarily mean that Jesus was not speaking of the eschatological desolation of Daniel 12 in Matthew 24:15 simply because a type or foreshadowing of the final Day appeared in the first century.

In Daniel, the “abomination” leads to the cessation of “the daily sacrifice” (הַתָּמִיד) in the temple (8:11, 13; 11:31; 12:11). The cessation in 12:11 leads to a specific number of 1,290 days, while the “abomination” in chapter 8 leads to “2,300 evenings and mornings” before the temple is “reconsecrated” (v. 14). One could argue that the cessation of offerings made by Gentiles early in the Jewish War (J.W. 2.17.3 §414) served a similar function in the first century. However, the Danielic references better fit the daily sacrifices made by the Jewish people, which continued during the siege right up to the final day of the temple complex (J.W. 6.2.1 §94). Therefore, Daniel’s “abomination,” specifically the one referenced in 12:11, would have been a very appropriate sign for Jesus to point to because Daniel’s prophecy said that this “abomination” would lead to a specific number of days before the restoration of the temple and the people. However, any “abomination” in the first century that did not lead to an immediate cessation of the daily sacrifices and a restoration of the sacrifices following a relatively short number of days would not fit the Danielic pattern.

The Immediate Aftermath of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως (vv. 16–31)

If the “abomination” is given in response to the disciples’ request for a sign, it must be an indicator that the End (i.e., the Day of the Lord) has arrived. One of the challenges that modern exegetes face when approaching this passage is the variety of options that have been proposed as a referent for the sacrilege (e.g., Israel’s unfaithfulness, Pilate, Gaius, Zealots, Titus). This dilemma is compounded when interpreters point to multiple possibilities. However, the fulfillment must be something that would be apparent to those who listened carefully to Jesus’s words and knew Daniel. ⁸⁸ The fact that Christians have been unable to reach anything near a consensus on a specific event in the first century that would have fulfilled Jesus’s warning is perhaps one indication that the prophesied event has not yet occurred. If the sufferings described in verses 6 through 14 were Braxton Hicks contractions, not directly indicative that the End has arrived, then the appearance of the “abomination of desolation” is the “breaking waters…indicating established labor.” ⁸⁹ This sacrilege indicates that the Son is about to arrive because specific things follow closely in its wake.

Pitre has helpfully outlined four results of the abomination in the Danielic passages (9:24–27; 11:31–35; 12:11), which can be used to evaluate the proposed options for τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. ⁹⁰ First, Daniel’s abomination “always refers to a profanation of the Jerusalem Temple” carried out by “the forced cessation of sacrifice.” As we have seen, this would have occurred too late in the first century. Second, the cessation of the daily sacrifices in the temple is carried out by a royal figure or by his forces. Third, Pitre argues that the abomination leads to the destruction of the temple and the city. He rightly notes that this is the “Achilles heel” of the interpretation that seeks to see Antiochus IV behind the abomination in Daniel 9. ⁹¹ However, Daniel 11:31 does not explicitly contain this element, which, I would argue, lends support to the argument that Daniel 11:31 is speaking of a different abomination than the similar one in Daniel 9 and 12. Fourth, according to Pitre, the abominations in Daniel are an “eschatological event that precedes the Great Tribulation…. [T]he desecration and desolation of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem appear to be directly tied to the final period of unparalleled tribulation.” ⁹² Here again one could plausibly argue that Daniel 11:31 is an exception. Following the profanation in Daniel 11:31, there will be a time when the God’s people will suffer “until the time of the end” (11:35), but this does not necessarily mean that “the time of the end” comes immediately after the events of 11:31. Therefore, assuming for the sake of this argument that Daniel 11:31 is an exception (i.e., an abomination that foreshadows the one of chapter 12), Pitre’s four characteristics accurately describe Daniel 12’s coming abomination: (1) it will involve the cessation of the temple’s daily sacrifices, (2) it will be carried out by royal figure or his army, (3) it will lead to the destruction of the temple and the city, and (4) it will lead directly to a time of unparalleled tribulation for the Jewish people. ⁹³

Need for Flight (vv. 16–20)

One could argue at this point that several of those characteristics are not present in the Matthean text. Therefore, it might not be legitimate to assume that Jesus or the Evangelist intends for them to be the framework for understanding the OD. In response, the NT writer’s tendency to assume the reader’s knowledge of OT passages pointed to with small source material is widely recognized. More importantly, here, we are encouraged to go back and read the prophet Daniel, specifically Daniel 11:36ff. Furthermore, the fourth characteristic identified by Pitre—the unparalleled tribulation for the Jewish people—is present in the Matthean OD, and it will require flight. Earlier in the discourse, when describing the events that occur throughout the interadvental period, Jesus told his followers not to be “alarmed” (ὁρᾶτε μὴ θροεῖσθε) by “wars and rumors and wars.” ⁹⁴ However, here in 24:15ff the situation changes dramatically. It is hard to reconcile these two instructions if Jesus is describing overlapping periods. His instruction to flee here in 24:16 also seems to assume a different period than the discourse on mission in chapter 10. In the earlier passage, which clearly includes the disciples’ more immediate future, Jesus instructed his followers to flee from danger so that they could continue the mission in another place (10:23). Here, in 24:16, the exhortation is to flee to the hills!

Unparalleled Distress (vv. 21–25)

Flight is necessary because the coming “abomination” leads directly to a time of “great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again” (v. 21). Once again, writers, ancient and modern, have noted a deliberate connection to Daniel 12, this time 12:1. ⁹⁵ However, at this point in the discourse, objections to the Antichrist position are often raised. First, it is commonly argued that the command to “flee” (φευγέτωσαν) in verse 16 rules out an eschatological context where presumably escape would be futile. ⁹⁶ How do you escape the end of the world? However, this argument is based on the presupposition that the “abomination of desolation” leads immediately to the close of the age. Instead, Jesus merely points to it as a sign that the Day of the Lord is present and that his arrival is very near. This is not only seen in the original context of Daniel 12, where the sign initiates a time of roughly three and a half years, but also in Matthew 24:21–26, where the sign leads to a time of tribulation, short enough that people can survive (v. 22), but long enough that Jesus’s followers will be susceptible to false messiahs and false prophets (v. 24). ⁹⁷ Rather than being an argument in favor of a historical referent for the “abomination of desolation,” the command to flee (“flee into the mountains”) could be an echo of Zechariah 14:5 (וְנַסְתֶּם גֵּיא־הָרַ֗י, “you will flee by my mountain valley”) and thus be another connection to that OT passage’s description of a coming attack, or perhaps better, an extended campaign against Jerusalem. ⁹⁸ In other words, Zechariah predicts flight during the coming Day of the Lord, and here in Matthew, Jesus is giving the instruction that will precipitate that flight when τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως spoken of in Daniel 12 appears.

It is also commonly argued that the Antichrist interpretation is ruled out by Matthew’s specific references to “Judea” and the temple, which may imply a trial that is merely local. ⁹⁹ However, if the Antichrist is a false messiah (a redundant way of putting it), then the Jewish people who are in proximity to him and looking specifically for a coming deliverer would most need the warning to flee. As Hilary put it long ago, “The error of the Jews will be that, having rejected the truth, they adopted a lie. The Lord warns them to abandon Judea and flee to the mountains, lest the violence and contagion of those who will believe in the Antichrist be brought among them.” ¹⁰⁰ Finally, another objection to the Antichrist view is that Jesus, after already describing the coming of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, again in verse 24 refers to “false messiahs and false prophets” who will appear. If the Antichrist is thought of as the final false messiah, how can others follow after him? As Bruner, following Beasley–Murray, puts it, “How can something be final that is followed by something else?” ¹⁰¹ In response, it is not necessary to assume that the Antichrist is the final false messiah or that other false messiahs will not arrive during this same period of distress. If the people of Israel are experiencing a time of unprecedented tribulation, it is easy to imagine multiple pretenders who claim to be their deliverer. Furthermore, verses 23–28 form a bookend with the opening warning in verse 4, once again emphasizing the parallel nature of the two periods on either side of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. Therefore, Matthew has both literary and practical reasons for emphasizing false messiahs at the opening and closing of Jesus’s first answer, even though the focus is on the quintessential false messiah in the center of his answer.

Therefore, an eschatological abomination somehow perpetuated by the Antichrist best fits the effects of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως described in the immediate context of Matthew 24:16ff. The abomination of Daniel 12:11 serves as an appropriate sign for Jesus to point to in the OD because, in Daniel, this sign initiates a specific, albeit brief, amount of time, which culminates in the close of the age (Dan 12:6–7, 11–13). In Daniel 12:7, the man speaking to Daniel raises both hands towards heaven and swears that the time to accomplish the things described earlier will be “a time, times, and half a time.” ¹⁰² The man then adds, “When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be accomplished.” The “holy people” (עַם־קֹדֶשׁ) are the people of Israel (cf. Exod 19:6; Deut 7:6; 14:2), and the promise by the man is a reference to the end of their exile. Goldingay notes the connection between the swearing of the oath with both hands and the oath of Deuteronomy 32:40, where God promises to avenge his people on the other side of exile. ¹⁰³ The “breaking” of the “holy people” could refer to Israel’s military defeat as depicted in Zechariah 14:2. ¹⁰⁴ However, Steinmann has suggested the more likely translation “when the rejection of the holy people is finished” for the Hebrew clauseוּכְכַלִות נַפֵּץ יַד־עַם־קֹדֶשׁ. ¹⁰⁵ Therefore, Daniel 12:7 likely describes Israel’s restoration and places that restoration at the end of a definite period of time during which the “holy people” would reject their Messiah. In Matthew’s OD, Jesus uses that same time period, which begins with a specific action in the temple, as a way of pointing towards this same restoration of Israel at the end of the age. Since this distress leads to a new age and not the end of history, Theophilos’s argument that verse 21 (“never to be equaled again”) “implies a continuation of the space-time continuum” does not require a fulfillment of this “distress” in the first century. ¹⁰⁶ Instead, Jesus mentions that this kind of tribulation will never occur again in order to emphasize that, although similar judgments have happened in Israel’s history (including, we now know, in AD 66–73), this one will be the final time of trouble for his countrymen even though the “space-time continuum” will continue into the Messianic age.

The Return of the Son of Man (vv. 29–31)

The final event described in the aftermath of τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως is the coming of the Son of Man himself to gather his chosen people (vv. 29–31). It is commonly argued that passages such as Isaiah 13:10, 13; 34:4; Ezek 32:7–8; Joel 2:10; and Amos 8:8 use similar language to describe judgments that have already taken place. ¹⁰⁷ Thus, it is suggested that Matthew could be applying similar language to the Jewish War. An argument for the traditional interpretation of 24:29–31 as the Second Coming of Christ is outside the scope of this paper, but the argument from these OT passages is perhaps circular since many of them are likely also speaking of what we now know to be Christ’s Second Coming. At the very least, many of these OT passages could be using a near fulfillment to teach concerning an ultimate fulfillment, and we should not be so quick to assume that Jesus is not also speaking of the ultimate fulfillment, the eschatological Day of the Lord, in 24:29–31. That this “coming” in Matthew 24 is also the παρουσία asked about in verse 3 and what we now know to be the Second Coming of our Lord is the more natural reading and has a long history in the Christian church (see, e.g., Didache 16.3–8). It is the same “coming” that Matthew refers to shortly as the time when the Son of Man “will sit on his glorious throne,” dividing humanity into two eternal destinations (25:31). Rather than being hyperbolic language, the language in 24:29–31 is best taken, as it arguably also should be taken in the OT prophets, for the end of Israel’s exile and the restoration of the world as the old creation passes away and becomes something better (cf. Matt 5:18; 19:28; 24:35). As Davies and Allison put it, these are signs that “a new world is coming (cf. 2 Pet 3:10, 12).” ¹⁰⁸

Conclusion

I would concur with Theophilos that Matthew’s structure, revolving around five discourses, “lends itself to a ‘Pentateuchal’ reading in which the Deuteronomic blessings and cursings are dependent on Israel’s response to the protagonist.” ¹⁰⁹ In Matthew, Jesus calls the nation to repentance (4:17) and then predicts a coming judgment upon his fellow countrymen because the vast majority have rejected him as their Messiah (11:20–24). During Jesus’s healing and preaching ministry, the nation experienced a measure of relief from the effects of the curse, but following his departure, the nation would return to a state worse than if he had never come, like a man freed temporarily from one evil spirit only to have seven worse demons later take up residence (12:43–45). Jesus has also referred to the coming burning of “their city” (22:7) and, most relevant for our discussion, the desolation of the temple (23:38).

However, I want to emphasize that Matthew never indicates that this coming judgment will be the final word for the people of Israel. ¹¹⁰ To borrow Paul’s words, “Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!” (Rom 11:11). For in Matthew’s account, we are told at the outset that Jesus “will save his people from their sins” (1:21). ¹¹¹ More could be said here, but as Runesson concludes,

It seems to me, based on the very clear declaration of purpose for the Matthean Messiah in the narrative, that if, as researchers claim, “Israel” is indeed rejected as the people of God in Matthew’s story, Jesus would have no people to shepherd beyond the final judgment, and one would consequently have to draw the conclusion that the chief priests were right [in 27:42]. Jesus was, after all, not the king of Israel, because there will be no Israel to rule. ¹¹²

Rather than seeing a rejection of the people of Israel in Matthew, it seems better to conclude, when Matthew says nothing explicitly to the contrary, that the people of Israel are included among the nations from which Jesus’s followers are to make disciples until “the very end of the age” (28:19–20) and that at the “end of the age,” a vast number of Jesus’s ethnic brethren will turn from their sins and accept him as their King. This reversal of fortunes would be very consistent with the Hebrew Scriptures that serve as the backdrop to Matthew’s story of Jesus. Specifically, this reversal would be consistent with the Scriptures examined above that most influenced Matthew’s Eschatological Discourse.

However, before this reversal occurs, Israel will once more commit a great act of apostasy in accepting a false messiah whose appearance will signal the arrival of the final Day of the Lord. We have seen several positive arguments for the Antichrist interpretation of Matthew 24:15. First, this option fits best with the disciples’ question, which asks about a complex of events (i.e., the Day of the Lord), which includes not only a destruction of the temple but also the παρουσία of Jesus and the end of this evil age. Second, Matthew 24’s structure best supports verse 15 being an answer to their request for a specific sign of this complex of events. Third, the background text in Daniel 12 best supports an eschatological tyrant, who is like Antiochus IV but who only rules for a very short time just prior to the resurrection of the dead. Fourth, only with great difficulty can Jesus’s exhortation to flee in the face of an impending trial be attached to the Jewish War. Instead, the trial of 24:16–22 will be unparalleled and seem to threaten humanity as a whole but also be short and brought to an end by the arrival of the mighty Son of Man. Finally, as Christians have noted since at least the Didache, we do not need to read the OD in isolation but can compare it with other Scripture. For example, Paul’s words seem to be a confirmation that Jesus is referring to the coming Antichrist in Matthew 24:15. One could argue that Paul, writing over a decade prior to the outbreak of the Jewish War, envisions a “man of lawlessness” or “lawless one” in the Jewish temple during that coming tragedy for his countrymen. However, that argument would be hard to reconcile with the Apostle’s statement that this man will also be “overthrow[n] with the breath of [the Lord Jesus’s] mouth and destroy[ed] by the splendor of his coming” (2 Thess 2:8). The evidence from 2 Thessalonians alone (not to mention Daniel) is strong enough that, if Hilary of Poitiers were able to read this article, he would have likely concluded that my small efforts here in defending the Antichrist view of Matthew 24:15 were “superfluous.” ¹¹³

Theophilos concludes that, in an ironic reversal, Israel herself has become the “new Antiochus.” ¹¹⁴ I think there is an element of truth in this. There is a sense of sad irony in Israel accepting a false messiah who comes in “his own name” after having rejected the Good Shepherd who came in his Father’s name (John 5:43). This act of rebellion will, as the OT prophets predicted, lead to desolation, at least for a while. However, it is the still-coming Antichrist who is the “new Antiochus,” and he will bring a far greater desolation. The darkness of that unfaithfulness will make its reversal that much brighter.

1. Dr. Meyer is Assistant Professor of Biblical Languages at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.[↩]
2. Unless otherwise noted, all English translations of Scripture are from the NIV 2011. The Greek NT cited is NA28. Quotations of the Greek version (LXX) of the OT are from Rahlfs’s Septuaginta.[↩]
3. Michael P. Theophilos, The Abomination of Desolation in Matthew 24.15, Library of New Testament Studies 437 (New York: T & T Clark, 2012).[↩]
4. For convenience, this paper will refer to this conflict, including not only the climatic fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 but also the events in Palestine following Cestius Gallus’s defeat in 66 that led to that fall, simply as the Jewish War.[↩]
5. For this reason, this article will not address the debate regarding the historicity of the material in Matt 24–25 or whether it preexisted in other written forms used by Matthew. However, because of its importance in the history of the interpretation of Matt 24:15, this article will examine the Markan account of the OD, assuming that Mark also accurately tells us what Jesus taught about the future. Luke’s parallel differs considerably at this point in his OD and will not be addressed directly in this study. My assumption here is that Luke 21:20 is describing something different than Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14, but that assumption cannot be defended here.[↩]
6. This survey is adapted from Theophilos, Abomination, 12–20. He divides them differently into nine options.[↩]
7. E.g., Alistair I. Wilson, When Will These Things Happen? A Study of Jesus as Judge in Matthew 21–25, Paternoster Biblical Monographs (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 2004), 142. For a similar reading of Mark, see Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952), 511. Similar would be those who believe that Matthew is referring to something still future from his perspective, post-AD 70, without being specific about the referent (see, e.g., Pierre Bonnard, L’Evangile Selon Saint Matthieu, 4th ed. [Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2002], 351; M. Eugene Boring, “The Gospel of Matthew,” in New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8 [Nashville: Abingdon, 1995], 442–43).[↩]
8. Theophilos, Abomination, 12.[↩]
9. Julius Wellhausen, Das Evangelium Marci (Berlin: Druck und Verlag Von Georg Reimer, 1903), 110. He is commenting on the Markan parallel. His Matthew commentary on this passage simply points the reader to Mark (idem, Das Evangelium Matthaei [Berlin: Druck und Verlag Von Georg Reimer, 1904], 125).[↩]
10. E.g., Thomas W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press, 1949), 329–30. For additional sources, see those surveyed by Desmond Ford, The Abomination of Desolation in Biblical Eschatology (Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1979), 160. Gerd Thiessen argues that the original source for the OD was composed in AD 40 when Gaius’s intentions were known but before the emperor’s death the following year (The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition [London: T & T Clark, 2004], 157–65).[↩]
11. The incident is also retold in Jewish War 2.10.1–5 §§184–203 (hereafter J.W.); Philo, Embassy §§197–337. Philo adds that Gaius’s attempt was a response to the Jewish destruction of a recently installed imperial image at Jamnia, which may have been compared to the desecration of Antiochus IV. For a critical reconstruction of the sources, which views the events in AD 35–41 as the backdrop to the beginning of the OD, see Theissen, Gospels in Context, 141–51.[↩]
12. Theophilos, Abomination, 16.[↩][↩]
13. Jerome is aware of this interpretation along with several others (Commentary on Matthew, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, Father of the Church 117 [Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008], 272). See also Eusebius, Proof of the Gospel 8.2.[↩]
14. Johan Lust, “Cult and Sacrifice in Daniel: The Tamid and the Abomination of Desolation,” in Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East, ed. J. Quaegebeur, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 55 (Leuven: Peeters, 1993), 283–99.[↩]
15. Many point to something that occurred during the Jewish War without being specific (see e.g., William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, 2nd ed., Daily Study Bible [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975], 2:338; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1992], 358; Jeannine K. Brown and Kyle Roberts, Matthew, Two Horizons New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018], 216–17; R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007], 913).[↩]
16. Keith D. Dyer, The Prophecy on the Mount: Mark 13 and the Gathering of the New Community, International Theological Studies 3 (New York: Lang, 1998), 226–31; idem, “‘But Concerning That Day’ (Mark 13:32): ‘Prophetic’ and ‘Apocalyptic’ Eschatology in Mark 13,” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers 38 (1999): 113–14.[↩]
17. John A. Broadus, Commentary on Matthew (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1886), 486. For a similar approach to the Markan parallel, see Dieter Lührmann, Das Markusevangelium, Handbuch Zum Neuen Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1987), 222. William A. Such argues that the “abomination” was Titus himself (The Abomination of Desolation in the Gospel of Mark: Its Historical Reference in Mark 13:14 and Its Impact in the Gospel [Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1999], 96–98).[↩]
18. France, Gospel of Matthew, 913; George C. Fuller, “The Olivet Discourse: An Apocalyptic Timetable,” Westminster Theological Journal 28 (1966): 161; Jeffrey A. Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2018), 1267; Donald A. Hagner, Matthew, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word, 1995), 2:701; David Broughton Knox, “Five Comings of Jesus, Matthew 24 and 25,” Reformed Theological Review 34 (1975): 46; John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859), 2:313–14.[↩]
19. According to Theophilos, “one of the strongest exegetical traditions” in the Patristics is that the “abomination” was an image introduced by Titus. See, e.g., Chrysostom, Hom. Matt. 75.2. Here could also be included those who argue for Titus’s standards as the “abomination” (see, e.g., S. G. F. Brandon, “The Date of the Markan Gospel,” New Testament Studies 7 [1961]: 133–34). Quarles correctly argues that the placement of the Roman standards in the temple came too late to serve as the sign to flee, even for those in other Judean towns, because by that point, the surrounding countryside had been subdued by Vespasian leading to the death of thousands (J.W. 4.8.1 §§440–50; Charles L. Quarles, Matthew, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary [Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2022], 614).[↩]
20. For convenience, I will refer to the eschatological false messiah associated with this view as the Antichrist, while recognizing that this particular Johannine term for him does not appear in our Bible until the writing of 1 John 2:18.[↩]
21. Irenaeus also appears to connect the Antichrist with the one who “comes in his own name” in John 5:43 and the unjust judge in Luke 18:2 (Against Heresies 5.25.4). Therefore, you could argue that some of his connections have less support than others (I am thinking here specifically of Luke 18). However, the links between Dan and Matt 24 demonstrated below indicate that Irenaeus’s instincts regarding Matt 24:15 (and arguably John 5:43) were correct.[↩]
22. Vicky Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making: Mark, Matthew and the Didache, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 97 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 129. On the Markan parallel, see also Joel Marcus, ed., Mark 8–16, Anchor Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 890; idem, “The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark,” Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 454–55. Josephus states that Phannias was a “mere rustic” who did not even know what the high priesthood was. Later tradition says that he was a stonemason (Guy MacLean Rogers, For the Freedom of Zion: The Great Revolt of Jews against Romans, 66–74 CE [New Haven: Yale University Press, 2021], 268).[↩]
23. Balabanski, Eschatology in the Making, 123–24. Similarly, Robert S. Snow argues on the basis of the connections in Mark 11:17ff to Jer 7–8 in the LXX that Mark 13:14 refers to the corruption of the temple leadership and their misuse of the sanctuary (“Let the Reader Understand: Mark’s Use of Jeremiah 7 in Mark 13:14,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 21 [2011]: 467–77).[↩]
24. For the real possibility of desertion following the coup d’ état see Jonathan J. Price, Jerusalem under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State 66–70 C.E., Brill’s Series in Jewish Studies 3 (New York: Brill, 1992), 95–101.[↩]
25. Sidney Sowers, “Circumstances and Recollection of the Pella Flight,” Theologische Zeitschrift 26 (1970): 318–20. Sowers believes that Rev 12, along with the OD, represents this tradition.[↩]
26. Quarles, Matthew, 614–16.[↩]
27. Theophilos, Abomination, 21, 230.[↩]
28. Hagner, Matthew, 2:701. See also John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 975; David L. Turner, Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 575. What Luz calls a “mixed interpretation” has a long history in the Church, dating at least to Augustine (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 21–28, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005], 187–88).[↩]
29. This could also be explained as an example of the phenomenon in which a prophet sees two events but not the intervening time between them. This has been illustrated with the example of a man seeing two mountain peaks and not the intervening valley (e.g., Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, rev. ed. [Philadelphia: Clarence Larkin Est., 1920], 7), or like lining up the near and far sights of a rifle and not seeing the intervening barrel (e.g., Walter C. Kaiser and Moisés Silva, Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007], 196), or like someone using “bifocal vision” (e.g., G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980], 258). However, as Caird cautions, the prophet does “not thereby lose the ability to distinguish between the two types of vision, any more than the writer of Ps. 23 lost the ability to distinguish between himself and a sheep” (Language and Imagery, 258).[↩]
30. Portions of the following two main sections are drawn from Ryan E. Meyer, “‘This Generation’ in Matthew 24:34 and the New Exodus” (Ph.D. diss., Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2021), which will appear in a forthcoming published version from SCS Press and is included here with their permission.[↩]
31. Theophilos, Abomination, 36–37. Cf. “Matthew can be centrally located in the stream of Jewish theological material which responded to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD by laying the responsibility at the feet of the inhabitants” (ibid., 73). I would only add that Jesus/Matthew is predicting the destruction, not responding to it.[↩]
32. For the various ways that the questions could be understood, see Daniel B. Wallace, “The Article with Multiple Substantives Connected by Kaí in the New Testament: Semantics and Significance” (Ph.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1995), 194. The Granville Sharp Rule does not apply to impersonal nouns, so the παρουσία and συντέλεια are not identical. See also idem, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 271. In rare instances (according to Wallace, less than two percent), two impersonal substantives in this type of construction can be identical, but the nouns involved and this particular context make that unlikely here (idem, “Article with Multiple Substantives,” 195–96, n. 24).[↩]
33. Wallace, “Article with Multiple Substantives,” 196–97. The verbal character of the noun σημεῖον makes it more likely that these are objective genitives rather than genitives of apposition (Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20, 1250).[↩]
34. Cf. Πότε οὖν συντέλεια ὧν εἴρηκάς μοι τῶν θαυμαστῶν καὶ ὁ καθαρισμὸς τούτων (Dan 12:6; OG) and καὶ συντελεσθήσεται πάντα ταῦτα (Dan 12:7; OG). The connection is clearer in the Markan parallel: ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα; Lars Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted: The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 Par, Coniectanea Biblica New Testament Series 1 (Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 145.[↩]
35. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted, 145.[↩]
36. Cf. Randall Price, “Historical Problems with a First Century Fulfillment,” in The End Times Controversy, ed. Tim F. LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 380.[↩]
37. Craig A. Blaising, “A Case for the Pretribulational Rapture,” in Three Views on the Rapture, ed. Alan Hultberg (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 42; John F. Hart, “Jesus and the Rapture: Matthew 24,” in Evidence for the Rapture: A Biblical Case for Pretribulationism, ed. John F. Hart (Chicago: Moody Press, 2015), 47–48; Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 869. Others have identified 24:36 as a transition from one question to another but argue that the two are being answered in the order given in v. 3 (e.g., France, Gospel of Matthew, 890; Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20, 1246–47). In addition to the transitional statement in 24:36, Gibbs rightly notes that the cohesion of the first section is demonstrated by the repetition of words or phrases, which do not occur in 24:36–25:46. E.g., πλανάω (24:4, 5, 11, 24), ὅταν ἴδητε (24: 15, 33), πάντα ταῦτα (24:8, 33, 34), and the plural ἐκεῖναι αἱ ἡμέραι (24:19, 22, 29) (Matthew 21:1–28:20, 1248). However, an examination of the content of the answers better supports a chiastic structure to the responses. The argument for a non-chiastic structure is perhaps in large part based on the unnecessary assumption that 24:34 must be setting a time frame.[↩]
38. Theophilos, Abomination, 81. Theophilos also argues that there are no OT prophetic texts that associate the destruction of the temple with end-time events (100). However, one of the examples he gives, Mic 3:12, is immediately followed by a prophecy of the “last days” when God’s temple would be restored and visited by the nations (4:1–2). Therefore, I believe the disciples had warrant to associate Jesus’s pronouncement against the Second Temple as an indication that he was also implying the coming of a new temple and the consummation of the Messianic age.[↩]
39. BDAG, s.v. “παρουσία,” 780.[↩]
40. Ibid., 781. The editors qualify this with “nearly” because the word is used in some later literature of Christ’s First Advent. When looking at Second Temple Jewish literature, we need to be aware of the possible presence of later Christian interpolations. However, there appears to be some evidence that the term may have already been used in pre-Christian Judaism to refer to the coming of Messiah or the coming of God to vindicate Israel (cf. NIDNTTE, s.v. “παρουσία,” 3:648–49; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 338).[↩]
41. Theophilos, Abomination, 103–4.[↩]
42. Ibid., 105–6.[↩]
43. Matt uses συντέλεια 5x (13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:30), always in combination with a genitive form of αἰών, to refer to the end of this present age. It is important to note that this is not the end of history. So e.g., “the αἰών is the present age as opposed to the age to come…the two ages are separated by the judgment” (France, Gospel of Matthew, 531, n. 3). The only other NT occurrence of συντέλεια is in Heb 9:26: νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς ἀθέτησιν [τῆς] ἁμαρτίας διὰ τῆς θυσίας αὐτοῦ πεφανέρωται. Here, the author is focusing on Christ’s first appearance as the initiation of the final stage of this present age.[↩]
44. TDNT, s.v. “συντέλεια,” by Gerhard Delling, 8:64.[↩]
45. Matthew uses τὸ τέλος in v. 6 to refer to this same “end of the age.” See, e.g., NIDNTTE, s.v. “τέλος,” 4:474. In that article, Silva suggests the articular τὸ τέλος is a “technical term for the end of the world.” I would substitute “age” for “world” so as not to imply the end of history altogether, but I agree that it does appear to be a technical term. According to Bruner, the majority of ancient and modern commentators, understand the “end” in v. 14 as the eschatological end, not the end of the Jewish temple or Jerusalem (Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew, rev. ed. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004], 2:494). Cf. “It is simply not possible to refer this saying to the fall of Jerusalem” (William F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew, Anchor Bible [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971], 292).[↩]
46. France is correct in likening these signs to “false alarms”—“the events described are not part of an eschatological scenario, but rather routine events within world history which must not be given more weight than they deserve” (Gospel of Matthew, 902). It is true that ὠδίν was associated with the Day of the Lord and thus may indicate that Matt 24:8 is speaking of a specific eschatological distress just prior to the end of the age (see TDNT, s.v. “ὠδίν, ὠδίνω,” by George Bertram, 9:672; BDAG, s.v. “ὠδίν,” 1102). However, the addition of αρχή and the context of the warning seems to indicate that Jesus is referring to “false labor” or Braxton Hicks contractions—real pains that are connected to the end but not sure signs that the end has arrived (so, e.g., Blomberg, Matthew, 354; Boyd Luter, “The ‘Preaching Texts’ of the Apocalypse [Dan 7:13 and Zech 12:10]: Fulfillment and Theological Significance,” Criswell Theological Review 12 [2014]: 32).[↩]
47. France, Gospel of Matthew, 900, n. 26; Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20, 1257; Hagner, Matthew, 2:694; Nolland, Matthew, 965.[↩]
48. Jan Lambrecht, “The Line of Thought in Matthew 24,1–35: A Discussion of Vicky Balabanski’s Reading,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 84 (2008): 524.[↩]
49. Hagner, Matthew, 2:695.[↩]
50. A. C. Cotter, “The Eschatological Discourse (Concluded),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 1 (1939): 206. An appeal is made by some futurists to the parallels in Rev 6 as evidence that Jesus is describing the eschatological tribulation in this passage (see, e.g., Louis A. Barbieri Jr., “Matthew,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1985], 2:76). However, it seems more likely based on his words in vv. 6, 8, and 14 that Jesus is describing something that is similar to the events of Rev 6 thus requiring the warnings regarding false alarms. For a similar conclusion, see John F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974), 183.[↩]
51. Jerome, Matthew, 271. This is almost instinctively recognized by Christians when we come to the Great Commission in Matt 28:20, where Jesus promises, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”[↩]
52. See, e.g., Quarles, Matthew, 612.[↩]
53. Hilary, Commentary on Matthew, trans. Daniel H. Williams, Fathers of the Church 125 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2012), 249–50.[↩]
54. So, e.g., Victor Kossi Agbanou, Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24–25: tradition et rédaction (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1983), 40.[↩]
55. The οὖν is likely resumptive and directly answers the second question regarding a sign after Jesus has given something of an aside with the warning in v. 4 and supporting or strengthening material for that warning in vv. 5–14. Stephen Levinsohn describes this phenomenon (but not necessarily this verse as “the topic that was under consideration before the strengthening material occurred is resumed and advanced, but οὖν conveys some ‘inferential force, since it also draws a conclusion from the supportive material introduced by γάρ’ (Heckert 1996:118)” (Discourse Features of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed. [Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics, 2000], 127; cf. Heinrich von Siebenthal, Ancient Greek Grammar for the Study of the New Testament [New York: Lang, 2019], 435).[↩]
56. “Ensuite surviendront les événements de la fin elle-même: l’abomination de la désolation (v. 15), les faux prophètes qui tromperont (v. 24), puis la manifestation de la Parousie (v. 27–28)” (Agbanou, Le discours eschatologique de Matthieu 24–25, 40).[↩]
57. Theophilos, Abomination, 47–48.[↩]
58. For recent defenses of γενεά in 24:34 (or its Markan parallel) as something broader than Jesus’s contemporaries but with slightly different conclusions, see, e.g., Lawrence A. DeBruyn, “Preterism and ‘This Generation,’” Bibliotheca Sacra 167 (April–June 2010): 180–200; Philip La Grange Du Toit, “‘This Generation’ in Matthew 24:34 as a Timeless, Spiritual Generation Akin to Genesis 3:15,” Verbum et Ecclesia 39 (2018): 1–9; Benjamin A. Edsall, “This Is Not the End: The Present Age and the Eschaton in Mark’s Narrative,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 80 (2018): 429–47; Kenneth E. Guenter, “This Generation in the Trilogy of Matthew 24:34–35,” Bibliotheca Sacra 175 (April–June 2018): 174–94; Steffen Jöris, The Use and Function of Genea in the Gospel of Mark: New Light on Mk 13:30, Forschung Zur Bibel (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2015); Meyer, “‘This Generation’ in Matthew 24:34 and the New Exodus”; Susan M. Rieske, “A Tale of Two Families: ‘This Generation’ and the Elect in the Book of Matthew” (Ph.D. diss., Wheaton College, 2019).[↩]
59. These observations are based on Sloan’s analysis of the Markan parallel (Paul T. Sloan, Mark 13 and the Return of the Shepherd: The Narrative Logic of Zechariah in Mark, Library of New Testament Studies 604 [New York: T & T Clark, 2019], 182).[↩]
60. Ibid.[↩]
61. Theophilos, Abomination, 121; cf. Wallace’s “genitive of product” (Grammar, 106–7) and Heb 1:9.[↩]
62. Theophilos, Abomination, 122–23. The other LXX passage, besides 1 Macc 1.54 and the Danielic passages, which has a cognate of both words in the same verse, is Hos 9:10, but its reference to God finding Israel ἐν ἐρήμῳ does not seem relevant to Matt 24:15. Theophilos also points to Tacitus’s report of Calgacus’s well-known speech, which describes the Romans as those who “make a desert and call it peace” (atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant; Agricola 30.6) as evidence that the Roman military could be described by a contemporary of Matthew as “desert making” (Abomination, 126). However, the LXX evidence already presented would indicate that Matthew had other texts from which to draw “desert-making” language, so he is not necessarily referring to the coming Roman army.[↩]
63. Although David Wenham does not argue for the Antichrist interpretation, he outlines the parallels between Matt 24 and 2 Thess, arguing that both draw from the same pre-synoptic source (The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse, Gospel Perspectives 4 [Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984], 176–80).[↩]
64. So, e.g., Quarles, Matthew, 612; cf. BDAG, s.v. “ἵστημι,” 482–3.[↩]
65. Theophilos, Abomination, 18.[↩]
66. Craig A. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Nelson, 2001), 320.[↩]
67. Quarles, Matthew, 614.[↩]
68. Ibid., 616. He also argues that the participle could refer to the location of the Zealots in the temple.[↩]
69. BDAG, s.v. “ἵστημι,” 482 [B1]. Note that BDAG is here speaking of aorist and future tense forms, which may present a difficulty in determining the meaning of Matthew’s (and Mark’s) perfect participle.[↩]
70. Snow, “Let the Reader Understand,” 476–77.[↩]
71. On the parallels to Jeremiah in Mark’s lead-up to the OD, see Snow, “Let the Reader Understand”; Larry Perkins, “The Markan Narrative’s Use of the Old Greek Text of Jeremiah to Explain Israel’s Obduracy,” Tyndale Bulletin 60 (2009): 217–38. Their arguments from Mark apply even more to Matthew since it not only includes the relevant material from Mark but also uniquely includes Jesus’s statement regarding the “righteous blood” of God’s prophets in 23:35 (cf. Lam 4:13) and the “innocent blood” of Jesus in 27:4 (esp. Jer 7:6; see also Jer 19:4; 22:3, 17; 26:15). In other words, Matthew more directly links the coming judgment upon Israel to the same types of crimes committed leading up to the Babylonian captivity. The expressions “innocent” and “righteous” appear to be synonymous or at least parallel when modifying blood in both the MT and LXX (e.g., Exod 23:7; Ps 94:21) (Catherine Sider Hamilton, The Death of Jesus in Matthew: Innocent Blood and the End of Exile, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 167 [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2017], 32, n. 1). The writer of 1 Macc also connects the shedding of “innocent blood” around the sanctuary with the desolation of the temple in the days of Antiochus IV (1.37–40).[↩]
72. Rather than being an editorial aside referencing the one reading the Gospel, this should be understood as Jesus’s own exhortation (evidenced by its appearance as well in Mark) for his followers to interpret his words by reading the prophet Daniel (so, e.g., Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:346; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013], 603; Quarles, Matthew, 610). This appears to be a deliberate allusion to Dan 12:10, which predicted that the “wise” would understand Daniel’s words (see, e.g., Robert H. Gundry, The Use of the Old Testament in St. Matthew’s Gospel, with Special Reference to the Messianic Hope [Leiden: Brill, 1975], 48–49; France, Gospel of Matthew, 911–12; Brant Pitre, Jesus, the Tribulation, and the End of the Exile: Restoration Eschatology and the Origin of the Atonement [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005], 313).[↩]
73. Gundry, Use of the OT, 48 so also Willoughby C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, 3rd ed., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1912), 255; A. W. Argyle, The Gospel According to Matthew, Cambridge Bible Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 182; D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed., vol. 9 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 562; Lloyd Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels (Leiden: Brill, 1970), 22.[↩]
74. Theophilos, Abomination, 122–23.[↩]
75. Ibid., 166–67.[↩]
76. E.g., John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 386–88; John Goldingay, Daniel, rev. ed., Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019), 542; Donald E. Gowan, Daniel, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 150–51; Carol A. Newsom, Daniel, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2014), 353–54.[↩]
77. For earlier proponents, see e.g., Hippolytus of Rome, “Fragments from Commentaries on Various Books of Scripture,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novation, Appendix, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 184; John Chrysostom, Discourses against Judaizing Christians, trans. Paul W. Harkins, Fathers of the Church 68 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1999), 120–24; Jerome, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 136; Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Daniel, trans. Robert C. Hill (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 304–15; Martin Luther, “Preface to the Prophet Daniel (1530),” in Luther’s Works, ed. E. Theodore Bachman, vol. 35 (Saint Louis: Concordia, 1964), 313; Jonathan Edwards, Notes on Scripture, ed. Stephen J. Stein, The Works of Jonathan Edwards 15 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998), 420. Edwards does not directly address where the switch takes place, but he clearly sees the desolation in 12:11 as an action of the Antichrist, of which Antiochus in 8:13 and 11:31 was a type. He sees 9:27 as another type fulfilled during the Jewish War. (ibid., 420–21). More recently, see Gleason L. Archer, “Daniel,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 143–47; Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, New American Commentary (Nashville: B & H, 1994), 305–6; Michael B. Shepherd, Daniel in the Context of the Hebrew Bible, Studies in Biblical Literature 123 (New York: Lang, 2009), 103; Andrew Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia, 2008), 538–40; J. Paul Tanner, Daniel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 686–92; Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 246–51.[↩]
78. C. F. Keil, “Daniel,” in Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. James Martin, vol. 9 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 802.[↩]
79. John Calvin, “Commentaries on the Prophet Daniel,” in Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. William Pringle, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1948), 653–54.[↩]
80. Jason Thomas Parry, “Desolation of the Temple and Messianic Enthronement in Daniel 11:36–12:3,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 54 (2011): 485–526. For a concise critique, see Tanner, Daniel, 688, n. 575.[↩]
81. George M. Harton, “An Interpretation of Daniel 11:36–45,” Grace Theological Journal 4 (1983): 205–31; Andrew E. Steinmann, “Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11?” Bibliotheca Sacra 162 (April–June 2005): 198–200.[↩]
82. Steinmann, “Is the Antichrist in Daniel 11?” 198–99.[↩]
83. E.g., Mercer provides extensive historical evidence that Antiochus did, in fact, honor the gods of his fathers (cf. Dan 11:37). The most obvious example is the desecration of the Jewish temple with idolatry, the act for which he, at least in biblical studies, is most well-known (Mark K. Mercer, “The Benefactions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Dan 11:37–38: An Exegetical Note,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12 [2001]: 89–93; cf. Strabo, Geography, 9.1.17; Polybius, Histories, 26.1; 31.3; 2 Macc 6.1–7).[↩]
84. The LXX and most English versions take this as a plural “gods.” However, the Hebrew phrase is used 45+ times in the OT and always refers to Yahweh, the God of Israel (Kyle C. Dunham, “Zechariah 11 and the Eschatological Shepherds,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 23 [2018]: 36; Tanner, Daniel, 698). The equivalent Greek expressions ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν/σου and τῷ πατρῴῳ θεῷ are used the same way in Acts 3:13; 5:30; 7:32; 22:14; 24:14. As Hartman argues, the original readers of Dan 11:37 would have likely associated it with Deut 13:7’s warning to Israelites regarding serving false gods (Prophecy Interpreted, 155).[↩]
85. Theophilos, Abomination, 196.[↩]
86. Edwards, Notes on Scripture, 420.[↩]
87. It is for this reason that I am not entering here into the much larger discussion of how Dan 9:24–27 should be understood. Pace Theophilos, I believe that Matt 24:15 can be rightly understood, without entering this debate. For a recent and thorough explanation of this earlier passage in Daniel, which connects it to the Antichrist view of Matt 24:15, see esp. Tanner, Daniel, 539–609.[↩]
88. The “problem with a nonspecific reference of Temple desecration is that Jesus’ hearers would have been left to choose from an assortment of possible scenarios, each of which has been argued as fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy of the ‘abomination of desolation’ by modern preteristic commentators” (Price, “Historical Problems with a First Century Fulfillment,” 385).[↩]
89. This is Edsall’s description of the Markan parallel (“This Is Not the End,” 440). See also Quarles, Matthew, 610.[↩]
90. Pitre, Tribulation, 304–5. He is not using these arguments to support the same thesis as this article.[↩]
91. Ibid., 304, n. 188. Antiochus defiled and damaged the sanctuary, and may have intended to do worse, but the temple and the city were never destroyed (1 Macc 1.22; 2:11, 12; 3:45, 51, 58).[↩]
92. Ibid., 305.[↩]
93. On this last point, see esp. Pitre’s review of late Second Temple literature that, among other elements, finds that a tribulation is often tied to the restoration of Israel, the coming of the Messiah, and the rise of an eschatological tyrant or anti-Messiah (ibid., 127–30).[↩]
94. Davis and Allison suggest that Paul’s use of this same rare verb in 2 Thess 2:2 (“not to become easily unsettled or alarmed” [θροεῖσθαι]) indicates that he knows an early version of the OD (Matthew, 3:340; cf. Wenham, Eschatological Discourse, 176). The similar context of the two passages is also noted by R. Alan Culpepper, Matthew, New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2021), 467. If Paul is following Jesus’s logic, then it is likely that both he and his Lord pointed to the same sign to determine whether or not followers of Christ should be alarmed by the presence of the Day of the Lord (cf. the “man of lawlessness” in 2 Thess 2:3).[↩]
95. See, e.g., Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on Daniel, trans. Robert C. Hill (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006), 317; Gundry, Use of the OT, 49–50; Hagner, Matthew, 2:702; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel of Matthew, trans. Robert R. Barr (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 241–42. Pitre, discussing the Markan parallel, notes that when similar language is used in the OT “it is connected with the curse or punishment of exile” (Tribulation, 319; cf. Ezek 5:8–12, 14; Jer 30:3–9; also 1QM 1.11–12). “The upshot of these parallels for understanding Mark 13:19–20 is basically to suggest that Jesus is using the imagery of unparalleled tribulation to describe the final period of Israel’s exilic suffering” (Pitre, Tribulation, 321).[↩]
96. See, e.g., David E. Garland, Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 242; Harold Fowler, The Gospel of Matthew (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1981), 2:446.[↩]
97. One could argue that “those days” in vv. 22–28 refer to the same interadvental period as vv. 4–14. So, e.g., Carson, “Matthew,” 564. This makes good sense of how Jesus’s return could come “immediately after the distress of those days” (v. 29), but it is hard to reconcile with Jesus’s statement that “those days” were shortened to prevent all humans (πᾶσα σάρξ) from perishing (v. 22). If the “days” extend longer than the normal lifetime of a person, what does it mean that they were shortened in order to allow men to survive?[↩]
98. For this echo, see, e.g., George Wesley Buchanan, The Gospel of Matthew, Mellen Biblical Commentary (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 2:907. On the Markan parallel, see Sloan, Mark 13, 188. Theophilos points to Zech 14:2–5 and Ezek 7:15–16 as evidence that Matt 24:16 refers to a first-century event (Abomination, 126–27). However, this not only overlooks the context of Zech 14, where the city is delivered by the arriving Lord, but it also does not consider the possibility that Ezek 7 (another passage with cognates of βδέλυγμα and ἐρήμωσις) might also be speaking about the eschatological Day of the Lord.[↩]
99. So, e.g., Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20, 1264.[↩]
100. Hilary, Matthew, 250.[↩]
101. Bruner, Matthew, 2:499; cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993), 414.[↩]
102. Justin, in the second century, sees this figure foretold by Daniel to rule for a “time, and times, and half a time” as the future Antichrist (Dialogue with Trypho 32). Similarly, Hippolytus sees the seventieth week in Daniel 9 as an eschatological week that can be divided in half into 1,260 days (Antichrist 43).[↩]
103. Goldingay, Daniel, 550.[↩]
104. Tanner, Daniel, 750.[↩]
105. Steinmann, Daniel, 564–65. Most understand this use of יָָד here to be a metaphorical reference to “power,” but if it retains its literal meaning of “hand,” Steinmann suggests that it could be an idiom (“thrust away the hand”) that refers to the breaking of a covenant relationship and thus would be a reference to the time during which the Jewish people reject their Messiah. Steinmann bases his argument in part on Hayim Tawil, “Hebrew נַפֵץ יַד = Akkadian Qāta Napāṣu: A Term of Non-Allegiance,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (2002): 79–82. It is notable that Tawil argues that the phrase allows for an eventual covenant renewal between God and Israel.[↩]
106. Theophilos, Abomination, 146.[↩]
107. For some or all of these examples, see, e.g., Theophilos, Abomination, 133–34; Quarles, Matthew, 629–30; France, Gospel of Matthew, 922. One significant issue for this interpretation is that it requires the “angels” who are gathering the elect in 24:31 to be human missionaries to the nations (Theophilos, Abomination, 145; Gibbs, Matthew 21:1–28:20, 1287–88) or to be heavenly beings engaged in “the propagation of the gospel throughout the world” (Quarles, Matthew, 633), perhaps giving spiritual power to humans (France, Gospel of Matthew, 928). All of these seem unlikely. Theophilos acknowledges his approach might seem “an exegesis of despair” (Abomination, 145).[↩]
108. Davies and Allison, Matthew, 3:358.[↩]
109. Theophilos, Abomination, 29.[↩]
110. Pace Theophilos who argues that Matt 23:39 holds out no hope for Israel (Abomination, 48–56). However, as Davies and Allison rightly argue, “the First Gospel—and in this it is in harmony with Paul—seems on occasion to foresee a special role for Israel in the eschatological drama (see e.g., on 19:28 and 23:39). One should not therefore, come away from Matthew with the notion that Israel’s election no longer counts for anything” (Matthew, 2:558).[↩]
111. “As it does through the Gospel of Matthew, ‘people’ (λάος) here means the OT people of God, Israel” (Ulrich Luz, Matthew 1–7, Hermeneia [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992], 95).[↩]
112. Anders Runesson, Divine Wrath and Salvation in Matthew: The Narrative World of the First Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016), 311. He adds, “A king who is not accepted by his people is a failed king. But this is not Matthew’s message” (ibid., 311, n. 248).[↩]
113. “Concerning this matter, I think that our comment is superfluous given the teaching of the most blessed Daniel and Paul. That which is spoken by each writer concerns the times of the Antichrist. He is an abomination because he rises up against God by claiming for himself the honor due to God” (Hilary, Matthew, 250).[↩]
114. Theophilos, Abomination, 199.[↩]