The abomination of Desolation. Mentioned by our Savior, Matthew 24:15, as a sign of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, with reference to Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11. The prophecy referred ultimately to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, and consequently, the “abomination” must describe some occurrence connected with that event.

Daniel 11:31-32 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)

³¹Forces from him will stand up, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the continual sacrifice. And they will set up the abomination^[1] that causes desolation. ³²And those who act wickedly against the covenant, he will pollute by means of smooth words; but the people who know their God will prevail and act effectively.

^[1] Abomination: (Heb. shiqquts) It means abhorrence, an object to abhor, horror, monster, filth. The sense of shiqquts is a detestable thing, also implying that it can make a person unclean. – 2 Ki 23:13; Ez. 5:11; 11:21; Dan. 9:27; 11:31; Hos. 9:10.

The soldier of Antiochus worked in conjunction with the apostate Jews, guarding the temple, halting pure worship of the one true God. In addition, other Antiochus troops were sent out on the Sabbath to slaughter Jewish men, women, and children. The soldiers “desecrate the sanctuary,” banned circumcision, and done away with away with “the continual sacrifice” (i.e., daily sacrifices), as well as offering up in sacrifice a big on God’s altar. (1 Macc. 1:44–54) Moreover, on Chislev (Dec. 15, 167 B.C.E.) the Syrians even made compulsory worship of an idol statue in honor of the Olympian god Zeus in the temple. The Jews called it “the abomination that causes desolation.” Abomination: (Heb. shiqquts) It means abhorrence, an object to abhor, horror, monster, filth. The sense of shiqquts is a detestable thing, also implying that it can make a person unclean. In other words, the Syrians ruined pure worship of the one true God in the temple by introducing an abhorrent, detestable, filthy object (the Olympian god Zeus) in the temple. The soldiers of Antiochus further profaned the temple by spreading sow’s broth on the altar. (1 Macc. 1:44-54) Both Daniel and Jesus said this barbarism was only a preview of the abomination that was to come – Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15.

Matthew 24:15 Update American Standard Version (UASV)

¹⁵“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),

Matthew 24:13 reads, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Matthew 24:14 said, “this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Matthew 24:15 begins with the Greek word hotan “whenever” followed by oun “therefore, which reads in English, “Therefore when,” which connects what preceded, “the end,” and leads into what follows. Let us take a moment to investigate verse 15.

In verse 3-14, Jesus outlined the signs of “the end of the age.” Here in Mathew 24:15, Jesus begins with “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand).” If we look at the corresponding accounts in Mark and Luke, they offer us additional insights. Mark 13:14 says, “standing where it ought not to be.” Luke 21:20 adds Jesus’ words, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know^[2] that its desolation has come near.” The complete picture is an “abomination” “standing in the holy place,” i.e., “where it ought not be,” namely, “Jerusalem surrounded by armies,”

^[2] Or then recognize

This is a reference to the Roman army, which assaulted Jerusalem and its temple starting in 66 C.E., under General Cestus Gallus. The temple was the “holy place,” and the abomination was the Roman army “standing where it ought not to be.” As for the “desolation,” this came in 70 C.E. when General Titus of the Roman army completely desolated Jerusalem and its temple. Specifically, what was this “abomination”? Moreover, in what sense was it “standing in the holy place”?

Jesus had urged the readers to understand. What was it that they were to understand? They were to understand that “which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet,” i.e., Daniel 9:27. Part “b” of verse 27 reads “And upon the wing of abominations shall come the one causing desolation, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one causing desolation.” – Daniel 9:26-27; see also Daniel 11:31; 12:11.

The abomination of desolation is an expression that recurs in Daniel with some variation in wording (Daniel 8:13; 9:27; 11:31; 12:11), where most scholars agree that there is a reference to the desecration perpetrated by Antiochus Epiphanes when he built an altar to Zeus in the temple and offered swine and other unclean animals on it as sacrifices (cf. 1 Macc. 1:41–61).^[3]

^[3] Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press, 1992), 603.

We can have it but one of two ways, as Jesus’ words were a clear reference to the Roman armies of 66–70 C.E. It may very well be that Daniel’s prophecy points to Antiochus Epiphanes “who in 167 [B.C.E., 200-years before Jesus uttered his prophecy] plundered the temple, ordered the sacrificial system to cease, and polluted the altar of the Lord by turning it into a pagan altar, where unclean sacrifices were offered to pagan deities.”^[4] This would be no different from Matthew referring to Hosea 11:1 (When Israel was a child … and out of Egypt I called my son). In that case, Matthew did not use Hosea’s intended meaning, but carried out an Inspired Sensus Plenior Application, by having a whole other meaning, an entirely different meaning for those words, making them applicable to Jesus being called back out of Egypt. It could be that Jesus used Daniel’s prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes, and gave is an Inspired Sensus Plenior Application, by having a whole other meaning, a completely different meaning for those words, making them applicable to the Roman armies desolating Jerusalem between 66 and 70 C.E. Then, again, it could be that was what Daniel was pointing to all along, and Jesus used Daniel’s words in a grammatical-historical application. Either way, it still comes out the same.

^[4] Larry Chouinard, Matthew, The College Press NIV Commentary (Joplin, MO: College Press, 1997), Mt 24:15.

STANDARD OF THE 10TH ROMAN LEGION This Legion attacked and destroyed Jerusalem in the Jewish War (A.D. 70).

During the days of the Maccabees this expression was used to describe the sacrilege of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the Seleucid king who decreed that an altar to Olympian Zeus and perhaps a statue of himself were to be erected in the temple on 15 Chislev, 167 b.c.: “They erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah.” Antiochus further decreed that the Sabbath and other festal observances were to be profaned, that circumcision was to be abolished, and that swine and other unclean animals were to be sacrificed in the temple (cf. 1 Macc. 1:41–50). This was one of the lowest points of Jewish history and was considered by many the primary focus of Daniel’s prophecy. Jesus now quotes Daniel directly to clarify that the fulfillment of the “abomination that causes desolation” is yet future.^[5]

When Jesus uttered those words of verse 15, the abomination of desolation was yet to appear. Jesus was clearly pointing to the Roman army of 66 C.E., with its distinctive standards, which were idols to the Romans and the empire, but an abomination to the Jews.

^[5] Clinton E. Arnold, Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Matthew, Mark, Luke, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2002), 148.

Judæa was under the charge of a Roman official, a subordinate of the governor of the Roman province of Syria, who held a relation to that functionary similar to that which the Governor of Bombay holds to the Governor-General at Calcutta. Roman soldiers paraded the streets of Jerusalem; Roman standards waved over the fastnesses of the country; Roman tax-gatherers sat at the gate of every town. To the Sanhedrin, the supreme Jewish organ of government, only a shadow of power was still conceded, its presidents, the high priests, being mere puppets of Rome, set up and put down with the utmost caprice. So low had the proud nation fallen whose ideal it had ever been to rule the world, and whose patriotism was a religious and national passion as intense and unquenchable as ever burned in any country.^[6]

^[6] James Stalker, The Life of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Henry A. Sumner and Company, 1882), 30–31.

In verse 32 we are told “but the people who know their God will prevail and act effectively,” which referred to the Hasmonaeans. A dynamic Jewish leader, Judah Maccabee, of a family known as the Hasmonaeans, led a rebel army that freed the temple from Greek hands. Possibly because of Judah’s military ability, he was called Maccabee, meaning “hammer.” Maccabee was a “name given to the family of Mattathias, a faithful priest, who led in a revolt (Maccabean War) against the Hellenizing influences of the Seleucid King Antiochus Epiphanes in about 168 B.C.E.”^[7]

^[7] Chad Brand et al., eds., “Maccabees,” Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 1063.

The Hasmonaean Dynasty

Judah Maccabee Jonathan Maccabee Simon Maccabee

↓

John Hyrcanus

↓ ↓

Salome Alexandra — married — Alexander Jannaeus Aristobulus

↓ ↓

Hyrcanus II Aristobulus II

II. Maccabean Revolt

A. Antiochus’s Revenge (168–166 B.C.) In the winter of 169/168, the rival brothers Ptolemy VI and Ptolemy VIII agreed to end their dispute and united against their uncle Antiochus IV. Thus, in the spring of 168 Antiochus IV invaded Egypt a second time. He captured Memphis, but when he attempted to subdue Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, the Roman general Popillius Laenas gave him an ultimatum from the senate to withdraw immediately from Egypt (cf. Polybius xxix.2.1–4; 27.1–8; Livy xlv.12.1–6; Diodorus xxxi.2; Velleius Paterculus i.10.1f; Appian Syr 66; Justinus xxxiv.3; Dnl. 11:28–30). Antiochus immediately retreated, having learned of Rome’s power as its hostage for fourteen years.

Embittered, Antiochus decided to establish Palestine as a buffer state between him and the Roman encroachment (Polybius xxix.27.9; Dnl. 11:30). He destroyed the walls of Jerusalem and refortified the old Davidic city making it the pagan stronghold (Acra). Considering himself Zeus Epiphanes, he ordered a vigorous hellenization program that would exterminate the Jewish religion. He forbade the Jews to celebrate the sabbath and feasts, to offer the traditional sacrifices, and to perform circumcision, and he ordered the destruction of the copies of the Torah.

The Jews were ordered to offer up unclean sacrifices on idolatrous altars and to eat swine’s flesh (2 Macc. 6:18). The climactic act was on 25 Chislev (Dec. 16) 167, when the temple of Jerusalem became the place of worship of the Olympian Zeus. The altar of Zeus was erected on the altar of burnt offering, and swine’s flesh was offered on it (Dnl. 11:31f.; 1 Macc. 1:41–64; 2 Macc. 6:1–11).

B. Mattathias (166 B.C.) In every village of Palestine sacrifice was to be offered to the heathen gods under the supervision of imperial representatives. In the village of Modein (27 km, 17 mi, NW of Jerusalem) an aged priest named Mattathias defied the command of Antiochus IV’s legate to offer the sacrifice on the heathen altar. When another Jew was about to comply, Mattathias killed him and the legate and destroyed the altar, saying, “Let everyone who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me” (1 Macc. 2:15–27; Josephus Ant. xii.6.1f [265–272]; cf. Dnl. 11:32–35). Mattathias, his five sons (John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan) and many other Jews fled to the mountains; this marked the beginning of the Maccabean revolt.

Mattathias and his followers exhorted Jews everywhere to join their struggle against hellenization. They gained the support of the Hasidim, those who were faithful to the Torah. They tore down heathen altars and circumcised children who had been left uncircumcised. After a long life, Mattathias died in 166. He exhorted his sons to continue the struggle and appointed his third son Judas as the commander of the war (1 Macc. 2:42–70; Josephus Ant. xii.6.2–4 [273–286]).

C. Judas Maccabeus (166–160 B.C.)

1. Rededication of the Temple (166–164 B.C.) The selection of Judas to carry on the struggle was the right one, for he proved to be a very capable leader in defeating the Seleucids. In his first year he defeated the Syrian governors Apollonius and Seron (1 Macc. 3:10–26; Josephus Ant. xii.7.1 [287–292]).

Part of Antiochus’s inability to put down the Maccabees was caused by the trouble he had in the East, which prevented him from being involved in Judea himself. Instead, he ordered Lysias, regent of the western part of the empire (Syria), to stop the rebellion and to destroy the Jewish race (1 Macc. 3:32–36; Josephus Ant. xii.7.2 [295f]). Lysias sent a large army under the leadership of Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. So confident they were of victory that traders went along to purchase Jewish slaves (1 Macc. 3:38–41). But Judas decisively defeated Gorgias at Emmaus, causing the Syrian soldiers to flee (1 Macc. 4:1–27; Josephus Ant. xii.7.4 [305–312]).

In 164 Lysias made one last attempt against the Jews by personally leading a larger army to attack Jerusalem from the south. Judas, however, completely defeated him in Beth-zur (24 km, 15 mi, S of Jerusalem). Lysias retreated, and Judas marched to Jerusalem and regained all of Jerusalem except the Acra. Having captured the temple mount, he destroyed the altar of the Olympian Zeus, built a new altar, rebuilt the temple, and selected a priest who had remained faithful to Yahweh. Thus on 25 Chislev (Dec. 14) 164, exactly three years after its desecration, the temple was rededicated and the daily sacrifices were restored (1 Macc. 4:36–59; 2 Macc. 10:1–8; Josephus Ant. xii.7.6f [316–326]). This event marked the beginning of the Jewish Feast of Dedication or Lights (Hanukkah). Judas then fortified the Jerusalem walls and the city of Beth-zur. This completed the first phase of the Maccabean struggle. The Maccabees could rejoice, for they had not experienced defeat.

2. Religious Freedom Gained (163 B.C.) Judas’s victories made Judah reasonably secure. Two things, however, needed to be accomplished. First, although Judah was reasonably secure, it was felt that all the Jews of Palestine had to be independent from Antiochus’s rule. After several campaigns this freedom was won.

Second, the Maccabees wanted to end Syrian control of the Acra in Jerusalem. The Syrian presence was a constant reminder of Antiochus’s hellenization program intended to exterminate the Jewish religion. When Judas laid siege to the Acra in the spring or summer of 163, some Syrian soldiers and Hellenistic Jews escaped and went to Antioch for help (1 Macc. 6:18–27).

Antiochus IV died in 163 (Polybius xxxi.9.3f.; Josephus Ant. xii.9.1 [356–59]) and was succeeded by his nine-year-old son Antiochus V Eupator. Just before his death, Antiochus IV had appointed his friend Philip as the regent and guardian over Antiochus V. But Lysias claimed that these privileges had been given to him at an earlier date, and so he crowned Antiochus V (both he and Philip were in Antioch when Antiochus IV died). Because of the troubles in Jerusalem, Lysias with the boy-king went south and defeated Judas at Beth-zechariah (18 km, 11 mi, SW of Jerusalem). There Judas’s youngest brother Eleazar was killed.

Lysias then laid siege to Jerusalem (1 Macc. 6:28–54). Judas faced severe food shortages (because it was the sabbatical year) and was about to be defeated. Lysias, however, received the news that Philip was marching from Persia to Syria to claim the boy-king Antiochus V and the kingdom; thus he was anxious to make a peace treaty with Judas. Judas agreed to tear down the walls of Jerusalem, and Lysias guaranteed religious freedom to the Jews (1 Macc. 6:55–63). The Jews, however, were still under the Seleucidian rule.

3. Political Freedom Attempted (162–160 B.C.) Having obtained religious freedom, Judas now wanted political freedom. To counteract his drive, the Seleucids strengthened the Hellenistic elements among the Jews. Lysias, it seems, appointed the high priest Alcimus (Jakim or Jehoakim) who, although of Aaronic descent, was ideologically a Hellenist (cf. 1 Macc. 7:14; 2 Macc. 14:3–7; Josephus Ant. xii.9.7 [384–88]; xx.10.3 [235]) and thus unacceptable to Judas.

Meanwhile in Syria, Demetrius I Soter, nephew of Antiochus IV and cousin of Antiochus V, escaped from Rome (where he had gone as a hostage when Antiochus IV had been released), killed both Lysias and Antiochus V, and assumed the throne. He confirmed Alcimus as high priest (162) of Israel and sent him with an army to Judea under his general Bacchides. The Hasidim accepted Alcimus as the high priest probably, it can be conjectured, because he was of Aaronic descent and because the Syrians (or Seleucids) had guaranteed them freedom of worship. Thus the Hasidim broke from Judas’s ranks, but they quickly returned when Alcimus, disregarding his promise not to harm them, slew sixty of them (1 Macc. 7:15–20; Josephus Ant. xii.10.2 [393–97]). Hence Alcimus asked Demetrius for more military help against Judas and his followers, called the HASIDEANS (2 Macc. 14:6). Demetrius sent NICANOR, but he was defeated and killed at Adasa (6 km, 4 mi, N of Jerusalem) on 13 Adar (Mar. 9) 161, (which the Jews celebrate annually as Nicanor’s Day); the army fled to Gazara (32 km, 20 mi, W of Adasa) and was destroyed. Alcimus fled to Syria (1 Macc. 7:26–50; Josephus Ant. xii.10.3–5 [398–412]).

Judas sent for help from Rome, but before any could arrive, Demetrius sent Bacchides with Alcimus to avenge Nicanor’s death. Because of the might of the Syrian army, many deserted Judas, and in the Battle of Elasa (about 16 km, 10 mi, N of Jerusalem) he was slain (160). His brothers Jonathan and Simon took his body to be buried at Modein (1 Macc. 8:1–9:22; Josephus Ant. xii.10.6–11.2 [413–434]).

D. Jonathan (160–143 B.C.) Judas’s death was a great blow to morale. The Hellenists were temporarily in control while Jonathan and his followers were in the wilderness of Tekoa, waging only guerrilla warfare. Bacchides fortified Jerusalem and other Judean cities against possible Maccabean attacks. In May, 159 B.C., Alcimus died, and no successor was chosen. Soon after, Bacchides left his command in Judah and returned to Antioch (157); he went back to Jerusalem at the request of the Hellenists but was defeated at Beth-basi (10 km, 6 mi, S of Jerusalem). He made a peace treaty with Jonathan and then returned to Antioch.

This treaty weakened the Hellenists’ position. Jonathan made Michmash (14 km, 9 mi, S of Jerusalem) his headquarters, where he judged the people, punishing the hellenizers (1 Macc. 9:23–27; Josephus Ant. xiii.1.1–6 [1–34]). During the next five years his power increased. In 152 he was further helped by internal struggles for power in Syria. A pretender, Alexander Balas, who claimed to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes, challenged Demetrius I. Both desired Jonathan’s support. Fortunately, Jonathan sided with Alexander Balas, for in 150 Demetrius was slain in a battle against Alexander. Alexander made Jonathan a general, governor, and high priest of Judah and considered him one of his chief friends (1 Macc. 10:22–66; Josephus Ant. xiii.2.3f [46–61]; 4.1f [80–85]). This was certainly a strange alliance, i.e., Alexander Balas, professed son of Antiochus Epiphanes, in league with a Maccabean!

New troubles came in Syria. Demetrius’s son, Demetrius II Nicator, challenged Alexander Balas in 147 and finally defeated him in 145. Since Demetrius II was only sixteen and inexperienced, Jonathan took the opportunity to attack the Acra in Jerusalem, where the Hellenistic Jews were still in control. Although Demetrius II opposed the attack, he later conceded to Jonathan by confirming his high-priesthood and granting his request for three districts in southern Samaria. Jonathan was not able to conquer the Acra, however.

In 143 Demetrius II’s army rebelled, and Diodotus Trypho (a general of Alexander Balas) claimed the Syrian throne (becoming its first non-Seleucid king) in the name of Alexander Balas’s son Antiochus VI. Jonathan took advantage of the situation and sided with Trypho, who in turn made him civil and religious head of the Jews and his brother Simon head of the military. Trypho, however, fearful of Jonathan’s success, deceived him, arranged a meeting with him, and subsequently killed him. Jonathan was buried at Modein (1 Macc. 10:67–13:30; Josephus Ant. xiii.4.3–6.6 [86–212]).

Jonathan was succeeded by Simon, the only remaining son of Mattathias. A new phase of the Maccabean rule had emerged. Although generally speaking one does apply the term “Hasmonean” to the whole of the Maccabean family, it is more specifically applied to the high-priestly house from the time of Simon to Rome’s intervention in 63 because in that period the Maccabean dream had finally come true, namely, the Israelites had become an independent nation. Hence the political and religious life was headed by one family or dynasty—the Hasmoneans.[8]

[8] H. W. Hoehner, “Maccabees,” ed. Geoffrey W Bromiley, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Revised (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1979–1988), 198–199.