"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel - let the reader understand - then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress unequaled from the beginning of the world until now - and never to be equaled again . If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened... See , I have told you ahead of time.... Immediately after the distress of those days 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give it's light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken." (Matt. 24:15-29)
These enigmatic words, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the first book of the New Testament, are some of the most disputed in the Bible.
They certainly ring with prophetic doom. With their images of a darkened sun and moon, and stars falling from the sky, they seem to be describing the end of the world. But what to they mean?
Two poles of opinion anchor a vast spectrum of interpretation. On one end of the spectrum are those who say that all prophetic Bible passages were aimed at the audience who first heard them. Authors of Holy Writ were speaking to contemporaries, and we must interpret their words by studying history to understand the culture and times - in this case, the first century CE. According to this school of thought, the clue to prophecy is to be found in events familiar to those who first read the words of the prophet.
The theologian Marcus Borg, among others, calls this the "past historic" view of biblical interpretation, and it is typical of what is usually called "liberal" theology.
At the other end of the interpretive spectrum are those such as author and evangelist Tim LaHaye, who insist that biblical prophecy was aimed at future generations - perhaps even to our present day. When daily newspapers begin to herald events similar to those described by the original authors of the Bible, then and only then can the prophecy be properly understood. Even the original authors didn't understand what they were writing about, because those who were inspired to write were transported forward in time to glimpse technological societies they couldn't possibly comprehend.
This interpretation is called the "futurist" view of biblical interpretation and is typical of what is usually called "conservative / evangelical" theology.
These enigmatic words, attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the first book of the New Testament, are some of the most disputed in the Bible.
They certainly ring with prophetic doom. With their images of a darkened sun and moon, and stars falling from the sky, they seem to be describing the end of the world. But what to they mean?
Two poles of opinion anchor a vast spectrum of interpretation. On one end of the spectrum are those who say that all prophetic Bible passages were aimed at the audience who first heard them. Authors of Holy Writ were speaking to contemporaries, and we must interpret their words by studying history to understand the culture and times - in this case, the first century CE. According to this school of thought, the clue to prophecy is to be found in events familiar to those who first read the words of the prophet.
The theologian Marcus Borg, among others, calls this the "past historic" view of biblical interpretation, and it is typical of what is usually called "liberal" theology.
At the other end of the interpretive spectrum are those such as author and evangelist Tim LaHaye, who insist that biblical prophecy was aimed at future generations - perhaps even to our present day. When daily newspapers begin to herald events similar to those described by the original authors of the Bible, then and only then can the prophecy be properly understood. Even the original authors didn't understand what they were writing about, because those who were inspired to write were transported forward in time to glimpse technological societies they couldn't possibly comprehend.
This interpretation is called the "futurist" view of biblical interpretation and is typical of what is usually called "conservative / evangelical" theology.
Matthew 24, however, presents a unique problem for both interpretive schools. Jesus talked about a time even farther back than his own when he quoted the prophet Daniel. But a careful reading of the book of Daniel discloses that the "abomination that causes desolation" to which Jesus referred is mentioned in three separate chapters, that seem to have been written by two authors, one of whom wrote in Hebrew and the other in Aramaic.
The futurist school of interpretation simply claims that Daniel was written by one far-seeing prophet who, using two different languages, described the same future day to which Jesus was referring in Matthew 24. There might be room for coincidence, in that past events may have foreshadowed the future event Jesus talked about, but that only shows that God sometimes used "coming attractions" as it were, to warn humankind of what will transpire if people don't shape up. In ant case, as far as we know, there have never been any past examples of stars falling from the sky, while the sun and moon became dark. So both Daniel and Jesus must have been referring to a day yet in our future.
The past historic school has a more complicated task. Looking for cultural explanations in Daniel's day is only the first difficulty. The interpreters also have to read the historical / archeological record to find similar events in the time of Jesus. So the "abomination that causes desolation" needs a bit of research before we can understand how theologians of the past historic school see the enigmatic passage of Matthew 24.
First we need to define some terms. There are at least four closely nuanced ways to translate the word abomination from the original Hebrew used in the book of Daniel. The definition most accepted is that of something "appalling" or "detested." Meanwhile, desolation carries with it the idea of stark emptiness. So another way of saying "the abomination that causes desolation" would be, "the detested thing that appalls so much that it causes them to leave the holy place (temple) empty.
For those who belong to the past historic school of biblical interpretation, two such events conveniently stand out. One happened during the time when, according to these scholars, this portion of Daniel was written. The other happened shortly after Jesus' time.
In 167 BC, the days to which past historic scholars believe Daniel 9,11, and 12 refer, Antiochus Epiphanes of Syria profaned the altar of the temple of Jerusalem. Some accounts say he sacrificed a pig there. Pigs, according to Jewish law, are "unclean," nonkosher animals. Other say he erected a statue of the god Zeus. Perhaps he did both, which would have polluted the holy altar and broken the first and second commandments referring to "have no other Gods" and forbidding the worship of idols. Either act would have been "appalling," an "abomination" that would have caused good Jews to leave the profaned temple "desolate" or empty.
The words attributed to Jesus could have been a similar historical warning. In 70 CE, shortly before the gospel of Matthew was written, Roman legions under Titus destroyed the temple at Jerusalem, setting off the great Diaspora, the dispersion of the Jewish people throughout the world that lasted right up until the birth of Zionism and the declaration of a Jewish state in 1948. With the destruction of the temple, Jews could no longer correctly worship within the parameters of their sacrificial system, because the temple altar, according to the Torah, was the only place such sacrifices were permitted to be offered. The temple site was left "desolate."
So those who follow the past historic method of biblical interpretation believe that the words attributed to both Daniel and Jesus refer to specific historic events. Three were written for the people of those long lost days, to whom these events would have had special significance. The part about the sun, moon, and stars is simply metaphorical hyperbole.
The futurists are not convinced. When Israel, during the 1967 six day war gained access, for the first time in more than eighteen centuries, to the ground upon which their beloved temple once stood, many Jews and Christians rejoiced because they believed that the long "abomination that causes desolation" was almost over. A new temple could now be built, ready to greet the Messiah - either, for Jews, for the first time, or, for Christians, the second time.
Those who hold this view offer different opinions as to the nature of the "abomination" that made the temple site "desolate." Some say it is simply the presence of the Muslim Mosque that sits on the site. Various fundamentalist groups have identified the "abomination" with the practices of the entire Christian church, the Roman Catholic denomination, the League of Nations, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the doctrine of the Rapture, the religion of Islam, or the nation of Rome. Each sect tends to claim that the scriptures clearly teach it's position, and most quote myriad Bible verses and passages to back them up, utilizing complicated systems if biblical dates and prophetic riddles.
All agree, however, that there will be yet another "abomination of desolation." A third temple will be built, and someday the antichrist will ascent its steps, declare himself God, and demand the worship from the inhabitants of the earth. This final "abomination" will signify the beginning of the end and bring about the final judgement of God and the battle of Armageddon.
