The Abomination of Desolation
Our Present Age Vol 6, No. 7
15 November 2024
The “Abomination of Desolation” is a particularly difficult biblical concept, but we cannot make sense of it without first understanding Daniel’s prophecy about the “Seventy Weeks,” which is also a particularly difficult concept. In this essay, we will briefly examine both to make a persuasive argument that the abomination of desolation in Daniel refers to the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. We begin, however, with the “Seventy Weeks”:
9:24Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of an Anointed One, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26And after the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed One shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the prince of the people who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator (9:24–27).
In context, this passage is God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer (9:3–19) asking for restoration to the land for the people of Israel. Daniel understood that the seventy years of exile Jeremiah spoke about had elapsed, at which point God had promised to restore Israel (Jer 25:11, 12; 29:10). There are a few issues that make this passage difficult: first, the Hebrew text in Daniel says “seventy sevens,” an idiom for seventy weeks; second, the identities of the “anointed one” and the “prince of the people”; third, the object of destruction; fourth, the identity of the “wing of abominations”; and fifth, the meaning of the numbers in this passage. This paper will examine the numerology of this passage focusing on the seventieth week.
First, is “seventy sevens” (שָׁבֻעִ֨ים שִׁבְעִ֜ים) rightly understood as seventy years, even if seventy weeks would be a more faithful translation? This passage must be read in light of Jeremiah, which explicitly affirms that the exile will end after “seventy years” (שִׁבְעִ֥ים שָׁנָ֖ה). In Daniel 9, therefore, “weeks” should be understood as “years” according to the prophet Jeremiah; specifically, “weeks of years.” Thus instead of reading this passage as 490 days, readers should understand the prophecy as 490 years from the time of the prophecy to its fulfillment.[1]
Attempting to craft a timeline of the seventieth week requires that we determine two things: first, when did the prophecy take place? and second, when do the 490 years begin? Before that, we must first determine the date of the book of Daniel to identify this. If we take the timeline presented in Daniel seriously, we see the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and Daniel’s work in Babylon lasting around 70 years after that until Persia’s conquest in 539 B.C.[2] Since Daniel’s prophecy occurred during “the first year of Darius” (Dan 9:1), we can count 490 years from 539 to around 49 B.C. This is approximately the middle of the Maccabean era, which began to put an end to transgression in the temple and drove out the foreigners desecrating the holy place.[3] The issue, however, is that 49 B.C. does not make sense in this context. There is nothing around that time which indicates the coming of the Christ (Heb מָשִׁיחַ), God’s Anointed One.[4] Thus we must look elsewhere for a starting date from which to begin counting the 490 years.
There are four possibilities for beginning the count: first is 586 B.C. at the fall of Jerusalem, but 490 years from there is 96 B.C., which is not an important date in Daniel’s view of history; second is Cyrus’ proclamation allowing for the end of exile (Ez 1:1) in 537, but this takes us only to 47 B.C. and does not make sense of the constructions mentioned in Daniel 9:26; third is Artaxerxes’ commission to Ezra to begin rebuilding the temple in 457 B.C. (Ez 7:11–26), 490 years from which takes us to A.D. 33; fourth is Artaxerxes’ commission to Nehemiah to begin construction to rebuild the walls (perhaps the “squares and moats” of Dan 9:25) in 444 B.C., 490 years from which is A.D. 46.[5] These last two options are most compelling, as is evident in Christological readings. We know that Christ died around A.D. 30/33, depending upon the source, and beginning the 490 years with Ezra takes us exactly to that date (this is the option Gentry prefers). However, there is a compelling case to be made with Nehemiah in 444 as well. Even though counting 490 takes us to A.D. 46, Harold Hoehner points out that using a lunar year of 360 days, which was the standard way of counting seasons (twelve months of thirty days each) takes us also to A.D. 33.[6] In either case, counting 490 years results in the date of Jesus’ crucifixion: Jesus who is the Christ, the Anointed One of God (Jer 23:5–6; Matt 16:16).
In the transition from the sixty-ninth to the seventieth week, the Anointed One will be cut off and the sanctuary will be destroyed (Dan 9:26–27). Christ identified himself with that sanctuary in John 2:19, suggesting that he will be the one cut off. The difficulty arises with identifying who the “prince of the people” is. He is the one who brings about the abomination of desolation, a term used later in Daniel to refer to Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the Maccabean crisis (11:31; 12:11). In this passage, however, the prince of the people is the representative of the people and therefore stands for the Jewish people as a whole. It is the Jews who bring about the abomination of desolation in the seventieth week upon themselves. Their sacrilege of God’s temple, who is Jesus Christ, results in judgment and the destruction of their temple in Jerusalem. Here we see a sharp divide between the temples. Nehemiah’s temple was never indwelt by God, nor did it ever become the place of God’s presence. God’s chosen temple, where he resided on earth with men, was Jesus Christ. By destroying this temple, the Jews establish themselves as God’s enemies who desecrate God’s temple by killing God himself (Matt 27:25).
The seventieth week is a week of judgment, but it is also a week of rest. There is a spiritual reading of the 490 years that symbolizes God’s faithfulness to observe the Sabbath rest. Just as God rested on the seventh day (Gen 2:2), so Israel was to rest on the seventh day (Ex 20:8). However, this principle is expanded out to a “sabbath year”: every seventh year is to be a time of rest, and every “seven sevens” (or 49) years there is to be a sabbath year followed by a year of Jubilee in which debts were forgiven, sold land return, and slaves set free (Lev 25:1–17). It is improbable Israel ever observed this command, for there is no record of an observation of such a socially upsetting practice. From the time Israel conquered the land under Joshua they failed to observe 70 Sabbath years; thus God sent them into exile for 70 years, allowing the land to rest for the time he appointed. Thus when Israel comes back they enter their fiftieth year, the year of Jubilee, when the slaves are set free and the old covenant promises are renewed. Hebrews 4 makes this point clear. Joshua could not provide rest to the people of God: “There remains a sabbath-rest for the people of God” (Heb 4:9). Reading Daniel 9 spiritually means that we are now approaching the end of this period of exile, the end of the 490 years, as we are approaching the new Sabbath rest of God.
If we believe that the “seventy weeks” takes us to around A.D. 30 (and, mathematically and theologically, we have to believe this), then the abomination of desolation must occur at or around the same time (Dan 9:27). Therefore, we have to turn now to an examination of this phrase to exclude the mainstream interpretations which will lend additional support to my thesis. This evidence also supports the contention for ending the “seven sevens” in A.D. 30 from the other direction, but perhaps more importantly it forces us to believe that Daniel is prophesying the death and resurrection of the Messiah which desolate the Israel according to the flesh to give new life to Israel according to the Spirit.
The “abomination that makes desolate” (שִּׁקּ֥וּץ מְשׁוֹמֵֽם) occurs thrice in Daniel, once in 9:27, once in 11:31 and again in 12:11. The Hebrew term for “abomination” refers usually to detestation or something that should be held detestably, such as unclean animals (Lev 11:10; Is 66:17; Ezek 8:10) or idols (Deut 29:17; 1 Ki 11:5; Hos 9:10; Ezek 20:8); in both cases, an abomination is something which should invoke a sense of religious horror.[7] The full phrase occurs in Greek as well (βδέλυγμα ἐρημώσεως) during Jesus’ apocalyptic discourses (Matt 24:15; Mk 13:14; allusions in Lk 21:20) as well as in the Maccabean accounts (1 Macc 1:54). In every case it describes an example of the exaltation of a pagan king as he transforms the Jerusalem temple into a pagan one.[8]
However, it is difficult to say what Daniel’s prophecy is referring to. There are four primary interpretations. Most rabbis and modern commentators view Daniel’s prophecy in reference to the activity of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (215–164 B.C.) when he set up the idol in the temple, leading to the Maccabean crisis (this is the view taken in 1 Macc 1:54; 2 Macc 6:5), but there are a few who believe the passage in Daniel refers instead to Manasseh, the king of Judah who set up a carved image in the temple (2 Chr 33:7).[9] Third, the “abomination of desolation” has been associated with the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70, when the temple is desecrated by the Roman hoards as Titus razes it to the ground (Matt 24:2), which seems to be supported in Mark 13:30: “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Fourth, some interpreters associate the abomination of desolation with events that have not yet happened since the antichrist has not yet come (2 Thess 2:1–10; 1 Jn 2:18).[10] This paper will examine each of these in turn, suggesting that the prophecies in Daniel do not refer to any of these events in full (but only in part as “mini-abominations”) but instead refer to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.
All four of these interpretations are significant and will be dealt with in order. First, it is nearly universally affirmed that Daniel’s prophecy about the abomination of desolation in 11:31 and 12:11 refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid ruler of Judea who reversed the traditional laissez-faire suzerainty of previous Greek leaders by establishing his own high priest at the temple and persecuting devout Jews who observed traditional religious practices.[11] According to Josephus (JW 1.34–35; cf 1 Macc 1:20–61), Antiochus attempted to Hellenize the Jews by forcing them to leave their boys uncircumcised and sacrifice pigs on the altar in the temple. Mattathias, a priest from Modein of the Hasmonean family, refused to sacrifice to the Greek gods (1 Macc 2:19–22). Thus began the Maccabean revolt; its symbol of resistance was tearing down the abomination which Antiochus set up in the temple (1 Macc 6:7). This interpretation, set in the context of Daniel’s prophecy about Greece and the conflict between the Ptolemy and Seleucid dynasties (Dan 10–12), makes the most sense, but there are a few difficulties unanswered: namely, what do the 1,290 and 1,335 days refer to in Daniel 12:11?
The second primary interpretation comes from a few of the rabbis9 who suggest that the abomination of desolation refers to the idols set up by Manasseh, king of Judah (2 Ki 21:2–9). Because of these idols, God said that Jerusalem would be devastated by her enemies. Since Daniel was written during that exile, reading backwards would make sense as it provides a prophetic expansion of God’s judgment. However, this account also fails to make sense of the length of days recorded in Daniel 12:11, and, like the previous view, does not align with Jesus’ observation in Matthew 24:15 that the abomination of desolation from Daniel has not yet been fulfilled. Unless we wish to say there are multiple abominations which desolate (and Daniel does not seem to allow this), neither of these options are satisfactory.The third option, which suggests the abomination of desolation refers to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in A.D. 70, makes sense of the New Testament witness in a few ways: first, there were some alive during Jesus’ ministry who also saw the destruction of the Jerusalem temple and thus the abomination that desolates (Mk 13:30); second, the events in A.D. 70 occur after Jesus’ ministry, which means he can say the events in Daniel are not yet fulfilled (Matt 24:15); third, Jerusalem was surrounded by Titus’ armies, and those in the cities fled to the mountains, particularly Masada, as Jerusalem was “trampled underfoot by the Gentiles” (Lk 21:20–24); fourth, the abomination of desolation appears to refer to a particular person, such as Titus who entered the Holy Place, and not an object, so that the abomination stands “where he ought not to be” (Mk 13:14). While this interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy makes sense, it does not satisfy the most important part of the apocalypse in the gospels, for after the desolation the Son of Man will come in the clouds to gather his elect and triumph over his enemies (Matt 24:27–31; Mk 13:24–27). This obviously did not happen in A.D. 70,[12] so we must again look elsewhere for the abomination.
The fourth attempt to explain the passage hinges on understanding the abomination has not happened, even in our own time. This, however, ignores that “this generation will not yet pass away” before the events that Jesus described and the abomination is established. While liberal scholars chalk this up to the over-realized eschatology among Jesus’ disciples who expected his return in their lifetime, serious scholars have to take Christ’s words here seriously. If he meant that some of his earthly contemporaries would see the establishment of the abomination and the Son of Man’s coming, then we have to rethink the way we understand Daniel’s prophecy. The abomination which desolates refers of course to Antiochus, to Manasseh, to Titus, to the future Antichrist, but this is not the abomination Daniel spoke of. Those were all smaller types of the abomination: smaller and not the desecration of the temple.
There is a fifth option, but I could find little support for it in the commentaries. It is my attempt to construct a theology which accounts for all of the difficulties above while also solving a few others. First, we cannot understand Daniel 11:31 or 12:11, or for that matter the apocalyptic discourses in the gospels, without reading the first instance of the abomination in Daniel 9:27 in the context of the “seventy weeks”: “And [the prince of the people] shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” The sanctuary is destroyed during the seventieth week, when the sacrifices in the temple are suspended (Dan 9:26–27). Christ affirms that the temple will be destroyed (Matt 24:2), but he also says that his body is the temple he will rebuild in three days (Jn 2:18–22). The prince of the people is the representative of the people and therefore stands for the Jewish people as a whole. It is the Jews who bring about the abomination of desolation in the seventieth week upon themselves (Matt 27:25). The abomination that desolates sends them further into exile; it is killing God himself, rejecting Christ and so rejecting God (Lk 10:16). The first century, a time of intense eschatological expectation, finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The whole of Daniel points to this man, the one who intends to take those exiles home: the one who intends to give his people their promised rest.[13]
The abomination that desolates is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. For we know that Christ is the Anointed One of Daniel 9:26 (not of 9:25), who died around A.D. 30 (Jer 23:5–6; Matt 16:16). Christ ministered for about three and a half years, or 1,290 days (Lk 3:1). The 1,335 days were cut short (Matt 24:22) for the sake of the elect. During his death, the sun was darkened (Matt 24:29; 27:45), and there was great mourning (Lk 24:18–21). Then they saw the Son of Man riding on the clouds (Mk 13:26; Ac 1:9), and the Holy Spirit was poured out. Daniel serves faithfully and will receive his reward (Dan 12:13), which is the resurrection of the dead. Christ, the firstfruits of those who will rise again (1 Cor 15:23), is the type of the resurrection to come. His resurrection is the beginning of the end of the desolation, the beginning of the end of exile.[14] It is when Christ rises from the dead and sends out his apostles that the end begins to come, and all his people are called from the corners of the earth to their promised home and their eternal rest.
[1] Michael Kalafian, The Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks of the Book of Daniel (Lanham: University Press of America, 1991), 3–5, citing Otto Zockler, “The Book of the Prophet Daniel,” in Commentary on the Holy Scriptures,” 1876 ed., vol. 13, ed. John Peter Lange (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1960), 13:194.
[2] Daniel continued work in Persia after the fall of Babylon, but the vision of Daniel 9 is recorded in the first year of the rule of Darius, who received the kingdom directly from the Babylonians (Dan 9:1). For the dates on the Persian empire, see Georges Roux, Ancient Iraq, 3rd ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1992), 381, 382.
[3] The Maccabean revolt began in 165 B.C. For more information on Daniel in light of the Maccabean crisis, see Daniel J. Harrington, The Maccabean Revolt (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2009), 17–35, and Anathea Portier-Young, Apocalypse against Empire (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 41, 211–212, 258–262.
[4] Jay Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978), 104. It is interesting to note that the MT division of the text prohibits identification of the Anointed One of verse 25 with the same title in verse 26. This is likely a Masoretic reaction against messianic interpretations of this passage, common with people like Jerome. A Christological reading is easily supported by semantic diagrams of LXX, θ, Sym, and Syr; so, Peter J. Gentry, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks and the New Exodus,” SBJT 14, no. 1 (2010): 30–31, citing Roger T. Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,” Revue de Qumrân 40 (1981): 521–542.
[5] All four of these are listed and analyzed in Gentry, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” 35, 36.
[6] Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977). See the critique of this position in Gentry, “Daniel’s Seventy Weeks,” 35.
[7] The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1901), s.v. “Abomination” (p. 1.80).
[8] The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company, 1901), s.v. “Abomination of Desolation” (pp. 1.80–81).
[9] Jewish, s.v. “Abomination of Desolation,” citing the Talmud tractate Ta’anit (Jer. 4.68a; Bab. 28b).
[10] Luther, Smalcald Articles II; Calvin, Institutes 3.194; Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland 65; Cranmer, 1.6; Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament 216.
[11] Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism (London: SCM Press, 1974), 277.
[12] Of course Jesus triumphed over his enemies in the resurrection (1 Cor 15:50–58). However, they have not yet experienced their final defeat, and thus we remain subject to them. A possible exception may be the postmillennialists, but even they must acknowledge that the Son of Man has not yet returned from the clouds (a sort of “reverse ascension”).
[13] N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 96. On the end of exile and its place in the New Testament, see N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 127–128. See N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 217, 268–338, esp. 269, citing Neh 9:36–37; Bar 3:6–8.
[14] See John Goldingay, Daniel (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1989), 308, and Wright, Resurrection, 112–116.