Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have seen that this remark is a redaction, but most reliable sources say that it was included in the original texts sometime in the 1st Century, most likely 66-70 CE. Commentaries over the direct meaning of this text vary widely, depending on which eschatological viewpoint you hold.

My question is simple: what is it that the reader must understand? Is there a textual association that should 'steer' us towards it's correct interpretation, or do we 'sit and wait' for some visible fulfillment?

share|improve this question
I see no need to "sit and wait" since the desecration of the Temple prophesied here (most likely that committed by Antiochus Epiphanes) has already occurred. But there are other interpretations. You can read them in a variety of biblical commentaries (available both commercially and for free online), then draw your own conclusion. – Pat Ferguson Sep 15 '13 at 16:39
What do you mean by "redaction"? Something more than an 'editorial' comment by the author at the time of writing, or just that? – Jack Douglas Sep 15 '13 at 20:16
An editorial comment, one that is made by the editor(redactor). It is not clear whether it was the original author, yet it was included as part of the text. – Tau Sep 15 '13 at 21:42
@user2664 I edited this to correct some minor grammatical/spelling issues, be sure to roll back my edit if you feel it changes the meaning or intent of your post in any way. Also, you mention sources but provide none. Who says that this is a redaction? Who says it was included in the original texts? I would encourage you to back up these assertions. – Dan Sep 16 '13 at 1:57
@PatFerguson, Jesus prophesied about a future abomination. So, I see no possibility that Jesus was referring to something that had already happened. – Simply a Christian Sep 16 '13 at 18:14
up vote 0 down vote accepted

I think you are correct when asking," is there a textual association that should steer us towards it's correct interpretation." In Daniel 9 v 24 we read concerning the end time,"He will confirm a covenant with many for one "seven".In the middle of the "seven" he will put an end to sacrifice and offering and on a wing of the temple,he will set up an abomination that causes desolation. When you read Daniel 9,you will find that 69 sevens have past so we are waiting for "one Seven" In Revelation the two periods of 1260 days equal "one seven year period" on a 30 day month. Revelation 11 v 2 says "The Gentiles will trample on the holy city for a period of 42 months(1260 days) which is the same as a Time,Times and half a Time*(3 and one half years)* as spoken about in Daniel 12 v 7,when the power of the holy people has been finally broken.

Regarding your comment about the gentiles

.The "Time,Times and half a Time are the Times of the gentiles being fulfilled.Hope this steers you to more interpretation.

What the reader must understand is that the Abomination will not be standing inside a place that has been constructed with bricks and Mortar.

Daniel 9 v 27

And on the wing of the temple,he will set up the abomination that causes desolation

Revelation 12 v 14 The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle,so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert,where she would be taken care of for a time,times and half a time,out of the serpents reach.

Here the woman represents Christs Church or Christs Temple and it will probably be on this temple that the Abomination that causes the End of the World will be set up.

share|improve this answer
@user2572-Hi user2572, and thank you for your comment! I agree with everything you have written; you will get my best answer vote if you can tell me "what the reader must understand". – Tau Sep 15 '13 at 16:06
"What the reader must understand is that the Abomination will not be standing inside a place that has been constructed with bricks and Mortar"user2572 I whole heartedly agree; the 'Temple' will not be the place where this 'Abomination' will be seen. But I have difficulty switching to a 'figurative' Temple(ie:Church) for 1 reason: the next verse(16) tells us "let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains". How would they know to 'flee' if they didn't 'see' what they are fleeing from? Is there something about 'Temple' that we're not seeing? – Tau Sep 15 '13 at 21:58
@2664, am i correct in understanding that you are taking the view,that the Church of Gods people is in no way connected to the setting up of the abomination.(ie:as in the persecution of saints). – Bagpipes Sep 15 '13 at 22:50
@user 2479 you asked Re: v 16 "How would they know to flee,if they didn't know what they were fleeing from?I would say with- out doubt,that they are "fleeing from the rebellion." – Bagpipes Sep 17 '13 at 12:11
@user2572-2 Comments: I don't believe the church is connected in any way: 1) Christ does not 'desolate' his own body(Dan. 9:27), and 2) The 'rebellion' happens earlier in history(you can see my remarks on 2 Thess 2:3). What I am wondering (aloud) is whether a 21st Century Jew/or Christian living in Jerusalem could witness an event which doesn't call for a physical rebuilding of the Temple and yet fulfil what a 1st century Jew would call the Abomination that Desolates? – Tau Sep 19 '13 at 8:25

It may have simply been the author's comment. A redaction is an edit or revision to an original text.

This is a synoptic parallel shared among the three Synoptic Gospels, i.e. Matthew, Mark, and Luke. However, you did not cite the one which occurs in Luke.

In Luke 21:20-21 (KJV), it is written,

20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.

Thus, it's reasonable to conclude that the abomination of desolation occurs when armies surround Jerusalem, something which happened in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was conquered by the Romans.

share|improve this answer
Hi Hbr3wHamm3r81 and thank you for your answer! This is certainly 1 view; and it tends to fall into the Covenant position. I have several problems with it: 1) It defines what happened in 70AD as the Abomination of Desolation, something a Jew at that time would know refers to the the removing of the daily sacrifice and placing an idol(abomination) that 'desolates' the Temple(Dan. 11:31) This happened during Antiochus Epiphanes in 167BC; I don't find any historical accounts of this happening in 70AD-although the Temple was certainly sacked and destroyed by Titus. – Tau Sep 15 '13 at 8:46
The 2nd reason is that it presumes Christ's immediate return (Matt. 24:29) which we can with certainly say did not happen right after 70AD. Preterists say it does-but they are hard pressed to explain why there is no great valley (Zech. 13:4) when His feet touch the Mt. of Olives. Luke does give us the caveat "...until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"(vs 24). But is that THE Abomination that Desolates-which signals His imminent return? – Tau Sep 15 '13 at 9:05

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.