Matthew Chapter 24 verse 15 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 15. - In this second strain of the prophecy contained in vers. 15-22, our Lord confines himself almost entirely to the fate of Jerusalem. Therefore. The illative particle carries us back to the signs given in the previous section (vers. 5-14). By saying when ye shall see, he implies that some of his hearers shall behold this mysterious sign, and have the opportunity of profiting by the knowledge thereof. The abomination of desolation (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως). The term is from the Septuagint Version (with which Theodotion's agrees) of Daniel 12:11; in Daniel 9:27 we find βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων, where the Hebrew gives, Upon the wing [or, 'pinnacle'] of abominations shall come the desolater." Also in Daniel 11:31 we have the simple βδέλυγμα. What is meant by the term in our text is a matter of unsettled dispute. The prophecy in Daniel 11:31 has been generally referred to the doings of Antiochus Epiphanes (see 1 Macc. 1:54), and the present is considered to relate to something analogous. "Abomination" in the Old Testament is generally connected with idolatry or sacrilege; "of desolation" is equivalent to "that causes desolation." Among the many explanation; of this passage which have been offered, two only seem worthy of consideration. (1) The desolating abomination is referred to the Roman armies encamped around Jerusalem (Luke 21:20), of which the symbol was the legionaries' eagles, regarded with reverence by the soldiers. But in opposition to this view it may be said, if the holy place, without the article, signifies the Holy Land, then the presence of the Latin forces would be no new sign to the Jewish people, as they had been familiar with such a sight for many years. If the temple itself is meant, it is plain that it would be too late to fly from that doomed city when the Roman eagles were already in the hallowed courts. (2) The alternative interpretation, which has seemed to many more probable, explains it of the sanguinary deeds of the Zealots, who, after the war had been carried on for some years, seized the temple, put a stop to the daily sacrifice, deluged the sacred courts with blood, and were guilty of most hideous crimes and excesses, which, as Josephus testifies, were the immediate cause of the city's, ruin (see Josephus, 'Bell. Jud.,' 4:03, 7, etc.; 5:1, 2; 6:3; 5:9, 4; 6:2; and Wordsworth's note on this ver. 15). The presence and acts of these ruffians were to be the signal for the escape of the Christians. I must confess that neither of these explanations satisfies me. The primal fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy is found in the erection of the statue of Jupiter in the temple by the order of Antiochus Epiphanes, and the pollution of the altar by the sacrifice of swine thereon. Our Lord would seem to refer to something analogous which should give the Christians a signal for escape before the complete investiture of the city. The deeds of Zealots and assassins, however atrocious, could not with any propriety be described as "abomination that maketh desolate standing in the holy place." The term, according to scriptural analogy, must refer to some sacrilege and pollution connected with idolatry, of which certainly the Zealots were not guilty. The Fathers, recognizing this, have seen the fulfilment in the erection of images of the Roman emperors in the temple or its precincts. But we have no account of any such act preceding the final siege. Pilate's attempted introduction of the Roman ensigns was defeated by the threatening attitude of the people (Josephus, 'Ant.,' 18:03. 1), and the actual setting up of these ensigns in the sanctuary, and the erection of the statue of Titus, were subsequent to the capture of the city and temple ('Bell. Jud.,' 6:06. 1). Our Lord is plainly referring to something that transpired before the conclusion of the siege, otherwise we might recognize an allusion to the insurrection of Bar-cochebas, which ended in the destruction of the partially rebuilt city, the abolition of its old name, the erection of a temple to Jupiter on the site of the holy place, and the placing of a statue of the emperor upon the altar, A.D. 135. What the "abomination" was cannot now be accurately determined, though its character may be divined from what has been said, and it was probably some anticipation of the antichrist who is to appear before the final consummation, who "exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thessalonians 2:4, 8). Spoken of by Daniel the prophet, in three passages (Daniel 9:27; Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11), all obscure and difficult, and not necessarily referring to the same events. Christ takes it for granted that his auditors understand the allusion. Stand [standing] in the holy place. Those who take "the abomination" to be the Roman army, explain this clause to mean "posted on the holy soil." But τόπος ἅγιος, with or without the article, is never used but in reference to the temple and its adjuncts (comp. Acts 6:13; Acts 21:28; and in the Septuagint, Leviticus 10:13; Isaiah 60:13; 2 Macc. 8:17, etc.). Whatever the sign may be, it is to be seen within the temple. (Whoso readeth, let him understand.) There are three ways of regarding this parenthetical clause. (1) Alford takes it as "an eeclesiastical note, which, like the doxology in ch. 6:13, has found its way into the text" This is a mere conjecture which has nothing to support it. . . .

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(15) The abomination of desolation.--The words, as they stand in Daniel 12:11, seem to refer to the desecration of the sanctuary by the mad attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to stop the "daily sacrifice," and to substitute an idolatrous worship in its place (2 Maccabees 6:1-9). What analogous desecration our Lord's words point to, is a question that has received very different answers. We may at once narrow the range of choice by remembering (1) that it is before the destruction of the Temple, and therefore cannot be the presence of the plundering troops, or of the eagles of the legions in it; (2) that the "abomination" stands in the "Holy Place," and therefore it cannot be identified with the appearance of the Roman eagles in the lines of the besieging legions under Cestius, A.D. 68. The answer is probably to be found in the faction-fights, the murders and outrages, the profane consecration of usurping priests, which the Jewish historian describes so fully (Jos. Wars, iv. 6, ?? 6-8). The Zealots had got possession of the Temple at an early stage in the siege, and profaned it by these and other like outrages; they made the Holy Place (in the very words of the historian) "a garrison and stronghold" of their tyrannous and lawless rule; while the better priests looked on from afar and wept tears of horror. The mysterious prediction of 2Thessalonians 2:4 may point, in the first instance, to some kindred "abomination."The words "spoken of by Daniel the prophet" have been urged as absolutely decisive of the questions that have been raised as to the authorship of the book that bears the name of that prophet. This is not the place to discuss those questions, but it is well in all cases not to put upon words a strain which they will scarcely bear. It has been urged, with some degree of reasonableness, that a reference of this kind was necessarily made to the book as commonly received and known, and that critical questions of this kind, as in reference to David as the writer of the Psalms, or Moses as the author of the books commonly ascribed to him, lay altogether outside the scope of our Lord's teaching. The questions themselves had not been then raised, and were not present to the thoughts either of the hearers or the readers of his prophetic warnings.Whoso readeth, let him understand.--The words have been supposed by some commentators to have been a marginal note in the first written report of the discourse, calling attention to this special prediction on account of its practical bearing on the action of the disciples of Christ at the time. There appears, however, to be no sufficient reason why they should not be received as part of the discourse itself, bidding one who read the words of Daniel to ponder over their meaning till he learnt to recognise their fulfilment in the events that should pass before his eyes.