Matthew 24:15

“When therefore you see the desolating abomination (or ‘the appalling horror') which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him who reads understand),”

This is telling us that during the time previously described in Matthew 24:4 a particular event will happen which will be of huge significance to the Jews, out of all proportion to the rest. ‘When therefore' may thus be seen as a vague time connection indicating ‘at some point in time over this period'. Or alternatively it may be seen as a reference back to the question in Matthew 24:3. ‘When therefore, you see this, then be ready for what I have described, the destruction of the Temple'. Now at last they will have the answer to their question. Either way there is no specific indication of when this will happen. It will simply be at some time in the future, in the course of the other wars and events described.

And what will happen is that they will see ‘the desolating abomination' or ‘the Horror which appals', the one which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the Holy Place. The original ‘Desolating Abomination' (Abomination is the Jewish view of the appalling nature of idolatry and the phrase in Hebrew can be seen as meaning ‘the desecration that appals' or ‘the desecration that brings desolation') was when Antiochus Epiphanes (168 BC) captured Jerusalem and raised an altar to Zeus in the Temple, slaying a pig on it so as deliberately to offend the Jews, and causing the cessation of true sacrifices (Daniel 11:31). This was looked on as the most dreadful sacrilege, and as a ‘Desolating Abomination', a ‘desecration that appalled', and it was followed by widespread persecution. It was never forgotten and no Jew could think of that time except in horror.

But later in Daniel it became a phrase which could be applied to any such person and such action, and it was thus expected to occur again in what was then the distant future, when the Messiah would be ‘cut off', and the city and the sanctuary would again be destroyed (Daniel 9:27). And it is on the basis of this connection to this highly disputed passage that many fantastic theories have been spun. But there is no real reason to doubt that the cutting off of Messiah and the destroying of the city and the sanctuary described in Daniel apply to 1st century AD, which is their obvious meaning as Jesus makes clear here when He says of it that it was ‘spoken of by Daniel the prophet').

Thus the Desolating Abomination, the Temple and the cessation of sacrifice were all closely connected in Jewish minds (see also Daniel 12:11), and if you were to say to a Jew of Jesus' time ‘Desolating Abomination' he would immediately think of sacrilege, of the profaning of the holy city and the Temple and of the cessation of sacrifice, with general desolation also included (Daniel 9:27). And in view of the fact that this is intended to be Jesus' explanation of His earlier statement that there would not be left ‘one stone upon another which would not be thrown down' it must here have included the idea of the destruction of the Temple.

Furthermore if a Jew thought of it happening at this time in history he would certainly think of Rome. Under its procurators Rome had already made attempts at such sacrilege, for Pilate at the beginning of his governorship had deliberately introduced his troops with their Roman standards into Jerusalem ‘the holy city' by stealth at night (Josephus says ‘Jerusalem'. Eusebius (4th century AD) later adds a reminiscence that the standards were introduced into the Temple area, but such sacrilege would surely have cause an immediate riot even at night, and they would certainly have been torn down the next morning whatever the consequences. Thus they were probably introduced into the Castle of Antonia, hard by the Temple). They had been introduced by stealth because they were looked on as idolatrous in that they often bore a representation of Caesar on them, as well as the image of an eagle, and soldiers offered sacrifices to them. Pilate had probably hoped that once it was done and was a fait accompli he would be able to continue to enforce it. But so horrified were the Jews that a huge crowds of them had subsequently besieged Pilate day and night in his palace at Caesarea demanding their removal, and when he had sent his soldiers with bared swords to surround them and threaten them, thinking thereby to bring them into subjection, they had simply bared their necks and said that they would rather die than allow what he had done. The people's fierce resistance, and their fortitude to the point of offering to lay down their lives in passive resistance, was so great that Pilate at last withdrew. Such a massacre would have drawn down on him the wrath of the emperor.

So the people were constantly on their guard against such attempts by Rome. Note that it was not only the Temple's sanctity that the people sought to preserve, it was also the sanctity of the city they saw as ‘the holy city' (Nehemiah 11:1; Nehemiah 11:18; Isaiah 48:2; Isaiah 52:1; Daniel 9:24). The standards could not even be allowed into the city. (Later the Emperor Caligula would order the erection of his statue in the Temple at Jerusalem, with accompanying worship, and this was only forestalled by his death, something which Matthew's readers would certainly have been very much aware of. Thus the possibility of desecration of Jerusalem and the Temple was a continuing situation of which the Jews were ever cognisant).

‘Standing in the holy place.' In Scripture Jerusalem was regularly called ‘the holy city' (Nehemiah 11:1; Nehemiah 11:18; Isaiah 48:2; Isaiah 52:1) and it is especially to be noted that it is so-called in Daniel 9:24 which is in the context of Daniel's prophecy concerning the destruction of the city and the sanctuary (Daniel 9:27). This would support the idea that ‘the holy place', when quoted in the context of Daniel's prophecy (‘spoken of by Daniel the prophet'), is to be seen as indicating Jerusalem and its environs, ‘the holy city'. And this view is supported by Luke 21:20 where Luke's Gospel interprets ‘standing -- in the holy place' as signifying ‘when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies'. It was in horror at the thought of the Roman standards entering the holy city that the Jews had previously resisted Pilate to the point of death, and we can compare how in Psalms 46:4 it is ‘the city of God' which is ‘the holy place' of ‘the tabernacles of the Most High'. Compare also Ezekiel 45:4 where in the picture of the ideal future the sanctuary will be set in ‘a holy place' of some considerable size as designated by God, although it is no longer Jerusalem because Jerusalem has been replaced by an area even more holy. All this would support the idea that ‘the holy place' here signifies Jerusalem and its environs.

So the ‘Desolating Abomination standing where he ought not' (Mark 13:14), that is in ‘the holy place' (so here), would indicate the actual preparations which would take place in the environs of the city, ready for the entry into ‘the holy city' of the Roman eagles. This last would occur once the surrounding Roman legions had forced an entry, and it would inevitably be followed by entry into the Temple itself. Luke confirms this quite clearly. Instead of the mention of the Desolating Abomination he wrote, ‘When you see Jerusalem compassed with armies then know that her desolation is at hand (Matthew 21:20)'. The desolating abomination would do its sacrilegious work. It should be noted that this is in exactly the same place in the discourse as the reference to the desolating abomination (note in both cases the previous and following verses - ‘you shall be hated of all men for My name's sake, but he who endures to the end the same will be saved' - Matthew 24:13 = Mark 13:13 = Luke 21:17; and ‘let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains' - Matthew 24:16 = Mark 13:14 b = Luke 21:21 which demonstrate this). Thus under any reasonable interpretation ‘Jerusalem encompassed with armies' and ‘the desolating abomination' are closely connected if not synonymous.

A suggested collation of the three Gospel narratives might be as follow:

“But not a hair of your head will perish. In your patient endurance you will win your souls. He who endures to the end, the same will be saved.”  “When therefore you see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not in the holy place (let him who reads understand), that is to say, when you see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand.”  “Then let those who are in Judaea flee to the mountains, let him who is on the housetop not go down to take out things that are in his house, and let him who is in the field (countryside) not return back to take his cloak.”

The presence of these troops with their standards and idolatrous worship around the holy city, with the purposes of eventually entering it, would be the Desolating Abomination. As a result the holy city would be profaned. And Titus would then in fact enter the Holy Place within the Temple itself, quite probably with his standardbearer who would follow close behind, thus adding to the profanation. Josephus in fact claims that rather than see the Temple profaned in this way it was the Jews themselves who set fire to it. But that may simply have been propaganda.

Some commentators are dissatisfied because Jesus did not actually mention the destruction of the Temple at this point. But we know that Jesus constantly said things and left the remainder for the mind to think over. The same is the case here. He was never prosaic. He was answering a question about the destruction of the Temple, and therefore these words and their consequences could only mean exactly that in the minds of those who considered His words. The coming of the Desolating Abomination (with its connection with destruction of city and sanctuary in Daniel 9) and the resulting great tribulation, would be seen as including the destruction of the Temple. To have actually said it before it happened would have taken away the mystery and could have opened the words to the charge of being treason against Rome, for although they were private words to the four disciples they were words which were intended to be passed on. Rome would not like to be accused of sacrilege on such a scale before it happened. The reason that He is not specific is because He is protecting His disciples against the future.

‘Let him who reads understand.” Compare Mark 13:14. This might suggest either that Matthew copied from Mark or that both used the same written source. The basic idea behind the statement is that those who read Daniel were expected to understand the meaning that lay behind it, and to realise who it was who in Jesus' mind were seen as being the expected culprits. Such a phrase favours a date before 70 AD when the actual events had not yet taken place, and when caution was therefore necessary.