Abomination

VIEW:16 DATA:01-04-2020

An object of disgust (Lev_18:22); a detestable act (Eze_22:11); a ceremonial pollution (Gen_43:32); especially an idol (1Ki_11:5-7; 2Ki_23:13); food offered to idols (Zec_9:7). The Egyptians regarded it an abomination, i.e. ceremonially polluting, to eat with the Hebrew as foreigners (Gen_43:32), because, as Herodotus says (Gen_2:41), the cow was eaten and sacrificed by foreign nations. So when Pharaoh told Israel to offer sacrifice to Jehovah in Egypt without going to the wilderness, Moses objected: "we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes" (the cow, the only animal which all the Egyptians held sacred), "and will they not stone us?" (Exo_8:26) compare the Jews' own practice in later times (Act_10:28).
The Hebrew, not only as foreigners, accounted by the intolerant mythology of Egypt as unfit for intercourse except that of war or commerce, but also as nomad shepherds, were an "abomination" to the Egyptians (Gen_46:34). Therefore Joseph tells his brethren to inform Pharaoh, "Our trade hath been about cattle, both we and also our fathers," i.e. hereditarily; for Pharaoh would be sure then to plant them, not in the heart of the country, but in Goshen, the border land. The Egyptians themselves reared cattle, as Pharaoh's offer to make Joseph's brethren "overseers of his cattle" proves (Gen_47:6), and as their sculptures and paintings show; but they abominated the nomad shepherds, or Bedouins, because the Egyptians, as being long civilized, shrank, and to the present day shrink, from the lawless predatory habits of the wandering shepherd tribes in their vicinity.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

This term was used with regard to the Hebrews, who, being shepherds, are said to have been an abomination to the Egyptians; because they sacrificed the animals held sacred by that people, as oxen, goats, sheep, &c., which the Egyptians esteemed unlawful. This word is also applied in the sacred writings to idolatry and idols, not only because the worship of idols is in itself an abominable thing, but likewise because the ceremonies of idolaters were almost always of an infamous and licentious nature. For this reason, Chrysostom affirms, that every idol, and every image of a man, was called an abomination among the Jews. The “abomination of desolation” foretold by the Prophet Daniel 10:27, 11:31, is supposed by some interpreters to denote the statue of Jupiter Olympius, which Antiochus Epiphanes caused to be erected in the temple of Jerusalem. The second of the passages above cited may probably refer to this circumstance, as the statue of Jupiter did, in fact, “make desolate,” by banishing the true worship of God, and those who performed it, from the temple. But the former passage, considered in its whole connexion, bears more immediate reference to that which the evangelists have denominated the “abomination of desolation,” Mat_24:15-16; Mar_13:14. This, without doubt, signifies the ensigns of the Roman armies under the command of Titus, during the last siege of Jerusalem. The images of their gods and emperors were delineated on these ensigns; and the ensigns themselves, especially the eagles, which were carried at the heads of the legions, were objects of worship; and, according to the usual style of Scripture, they were therefore an abomination. Those ensigns were placed upon the ruins of the temple after it was taken and demolished; and, as Josephus informs us, the Romans sacrificed to them there. The horror with which the Jews regarded them, sufficiently appears from the account which Josephus gives of Pilate's introducing them into the city, when he sent his army from Caesarea into winter quarters at Jerusalem, and of Vitellius's proposing to march through Judea, after he had received orders from Tiberius to attack Aretas, king of Petra. The people supplicated and remonstrated and induced Pilate to remove the army, and Vitellius to march his troops another way. The Jews applied the above passage of Daniel to the Romans, as we are informed by Jerome. The learned Mr. Mede concurs in the same opinion. Sir Isaac Newton, Obs. on Daniel xi, xii, observes, that in the sixteenth year of the emperor Adrian. B.C. 132, the Romans accomplished the prediction of Daniel by building a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus, where the temple of God in Jerusalem had stood. Upon this occasion the Jews, under the conduct of Barchochab, rose up in arms against the Romans, and in the war had fifty cities demolished, nine hundred and eighty-five of their best towns destroyed, and five hundred and eighty thousand men slain by the sword; and in the end of the war, B.C. 136, they were banished from Judea upon pain of death; and thenceforth the land remained desolate of its old inhabitants. Others again have applied the prediction of Daniel to the invasion and desolation of Christendom by the Mohammedans, and to their conversion of the churches into mosques. From this interpretation they infer, that the religion of Mohammed will prevail in the east one thousand two hundred and sixty years, and be succeeded by the restoration of the Jews, the destruction of Antichrist, the full conversion of the Gentiles to the church of Christ, and the commencement of the millennium.
In general, whatever is morally or ceremonially impure, or leads to sin, is designated an abomination to God. Thus lying lips are said to be an abomination to the Lord. Every thing in doctrine or practice which tended to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel is also in Scripture called abominable; hence Babylon is represented, Rev_17:4, as holding in her hand a cup “full of abominations.” In this view, to “work abomination,” is to introduce idolatry, or any other great corruption, into the church and worship of God, 1Ki_11:7.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

a-bom-i-nā?shun (פּגּוּלpiggūl, תּועבה, tō‛ēbhāh, שׁקץ, sheḳec (שׁקּוּץ, shiḳḳūc)): three distinct Hebrew words are rendered in the English Bible by ?abomination,? or ?abominable thing,? referring (except in Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34) to things or practices abhorrent to Yahweh, and opposed to the ritual or moral requirements of His religion. It would be well if these words could be distinguished in translation, as they denote different degrees of abhorrence or loathsomeness.
The word most used for this idea by the Hebrews and indicating the highest degree of abomination is תּועבה, tō‛ēbhāh, meaning primarily that which offends the religious sense of a people. When it is said, for example, ?The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians,? this is the word used; the significance being that the Hebrews were repugnant to the Egyptians as foreigners, as of an inferior caste, and especially as shepherds (Gen_46:34).
The feeling of the Egyptians for the Greeks was likewise one of repugnance. Herodotus (ii.41) says the Egyptians would not kiss a Greek on the mouth, or use his dish, or taste meat cut with the knife of a Greek.
Among the objects described in the Old Testament as ?abominations? in this sense are heathen gods, such as Ashtoreth (Astarte), Chemosh, Milcom, the ?abominations? of the Zidonians (Phoenicians), Moabites, and Ammonites, respectively (2Ki_23:13), and everything connected with the worship of such gods. When Pharaoh, remonstrating against the departure of the children of Israel, exhorted them to offer sacrifices to their God in Egypt, Moses said: ?Shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians (i.e. the animals worshipped by them which were taboo, tō‛ēbhāh, to the Israelites) before their eyes, and will they not stone us?? (Exo_8:26).
It is to be noted that, not only the heathen idol itself, but anything offered to or associated with the idol, all the paraphernalia of the forbidden cult, was called an ?abomination,? for it ?is an abomination to Yahweh thy God? (Deu_7:25, Deu_7:26). The Deuteronomic writer here adds, in terms quite significant of the point of view and the spirit of the whole law: 'Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thy house and thus become a thing set apart (ḥērem = tabooed) like unto it; thou shalt utterly detest it and utterly abhor it, for it is a thing set apart' (tabooed). Tō‛ēbhāh is even used as synonymous with ?idol? or heathen deity, as in Isa_44:19; Deu_32:16; 2Ki_23:13; and especially Exo_8:22.
Everything akin to magic or divination is likewise an abomination tō‛ēbhāh; as are sexual transgressions (Deu_22:5; Deu_23:18; Deu_24:4), especially incest and other unnatural offenses: ?For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you? (Lev_18:27; compare Eze_8:15). It is to be noted, however, that the word takes on in the later usage a higher ethical and spiritual meaning: as where ?divers measures, a great and a small,? are forbidden (Deu_25:14-16); and in Proverbs where ?lying lips? (Pro_12:22), ?the proud in heart? (Pro_16:5), ?the way of the wicked? (Pro_15:9), ?evil devices? (Pro_15:26), and ?he that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the righteous? (Pro_17:15), are said to be an abomination in God's sight. At last prophet and sage are found to unite in declaring that any sacrifice, however free from physical blemish, if offered without purity of motive, is an abomination: 'Bring no more an oblation of falsehood - an incense of abomination it is to me' (Isa_1:13; compare Jer_7:10). ?The sacrifice of the wicked? and the prayer of him ?that turneth away his ear from hearing the law,? are equally an abomination (see Pro_15:8; Pro_21:27; Pro_28:9).
Another word rendered ?abomination? in the King James Version is שׁקץ, sheḳec or שׁקּוּץ, shiḳḳuč. It expresses generally a somewhat less degree of horror or religious aversion than tō‛ēbhāh, but sometimes seems to stand about on a level with it in meaning. In Deu_14:3, for example, we have the command, ?Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing,? as introductory to the laws prohibiting the use of the unclean animals (see CLEAN AND UNCLEAN ANIMALS), and the word there used is tō‛ēbhāȟ. But in Lev_11:10-13, Lev_11:20, Lev_11:23, Lev_11:41, Lev_11:42; Isa_66:17; and in Eze_8:10 sheḳec is the word used and likewise applied to the prohibited animals; as also in Lev_11:43 sheḳec is used when it is commanded, ?Ye shall not make yourselves abominable.? Then sheḳec is often used parallel to or together with tō‛ēbhāh of that which should be held as detestable, as for instance, of idols and idolatrous practices (see especially Deu_29:17; Hos_9:10; Jer_4:1; Jer_13:27; Jer_16:18; Eze_11:18-21; Eze_20:7, Eze_20:8). It is used exactly as tō‛ēbhāh is used as applied to Milcom, the god of the Ammonites, which is spoken of as the detestable thing sheḳec of the Ammonites (1Ki_11:5). Still even in such cases to'ebhah seems to be the stronger word and to express that which is in the highest degree abhorrent.
The other word used to express a somewhat kindred idea of abhorrence and translated ?abomination? in the King James Version is פגול, piggūl; but it is used in the Hebrew Bible only of sacrificial flesh that has become stale, putrid, tainted (see Lev_7:18; Lev_19:7; Eze_4:14; Isa_65:4). Driver maintains that it occurs only as a ?technical term for such state sacrificial flesh as has not been eaten within the prescribed time,? and, accordingly, he would everywhere render it specifically ?refuse meat.? Compare leḥem meghō'āl, ?the loathsome bread? (from gā'al, ?to loathe?) Mal_1:7. A chief interest in the subject for Christians grows out of the use of the term in the expression ?abomination of desolation? (Mat_24:15 and Mar_13:14), which see. See also ABHOR.
Literature
Commentators at the place Rabbinical literature in point. Driver; Weiss; Gratz, Gesch. der Juden, IV, note 15.
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

This word describes generally any object of detestation or disgust (Lev_18:22; Deu_7:25); and is applied to an impure or detestable action (Eze_22:11; Eze_33:26; Mal_2:11, etc.); to anything causing a ceremonial pollution (Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34; Deu_14:3); but more especially to idols (Lev_18:22; Lev_20:13; Deu_7:26; 1Ki_11:5; 1Ki_11:7; 2Ki_23:13); and also to food offered to idols (Zec_9:7); and to filth of every kind (Nah_3:6). Especial attention has been drawn to two or three of the texts in which the word occurs, on account of their peculiar interest or difficulty. The first is Gen_43:32 : 'The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.' The primary reason of this seems to have been that the cow, which was a sacred animal in Egypt, was eaten by the Jews and most other nations, and therefore the Egyptians considered themselves ceremonially defiled if they ate with any strangers.
The second passage is Gen_46:34. Joseph is telling his brethren how to conduct themselves when introduced to the king of Egypt; and he instructs them that when asked concerning their occupation they should answer: 'Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers.' And the reason is added: 'That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen?for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.' In the former instance they were 'an abomination' as strangers, with whom the Egyptians could not eat; here they are a further abomination as nomad shepherds, whom the Egyptians held in peculiar abhorrence. For this aversion two reasons are given: one is the grievous oppression which the inhabitants of Lower and Middle Egypt had suffered from a tribe of nomad shepherds, to whom they had for many years been subject, who had only of late been expelled. The other reason, not necessarily superseding the former, but rather strengthening it, is that the Egyptians, as a settled and civilized people, detested the lawless and predatory habits of the wandering shepherd tribes, which then, as now, bounded the valley of the Nile, and occupied the Arabias.
The third marked use of this word again occurs in Egypt. The king tells the Israelites to offer to their god the sacrifices which they desired, without going to the desert for that purpose. To which Moses objects, that they should have to sacrifice to the Lord 'the abomination of the Egyptians,' who would thereby be highly exasperated against them (Exo_8:25-26). A reference back to the first explanation shows that this 'abomination' was the cow, the only animal which all the Egyptians agreed in holding sacred; whereas, in the great sacrifice which the Hebrews proposed to hold, not only would heifers be offered, but the people would feast upon their flesh.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Abomination
(פַּגּוּל, piggul', filthy stench, Lev_7:18; “abominable,” Lev_19:7; Isa_65:4; Eze_4:14; שׁקּוּוֹ, shikkuts', Deu_29:17; 1Ki_11:5; 1Ki_11:7; 2Ki_23:13; 2Ki_23:24; 2Ch_15:8; Isa_66:3; Jer_4:1; Jer_7:30; Jer_13:27; Jer_16:18; Jer_32:34; Eze_5:11; Eze_7:20; Eze_11:18; Eze_11:21; Eze_20:7-8; Eze_20:30; Eze_37:23; Dan_9:27; Dan_11:31; Dan_12:11; Hos_10:10; Nah_3:6; Zec_9:7; or שֶׁקֶוֹ, shekets, filth, Lev_7:21; Lev_11:10-13; Lev_11:20; Lev_11:23; Lev_11:41-42; Isa_66:17; Eze_8:10; elsewhere תּוֹעֵבָה, toebah', abhorrence; Sept. βδέλυγμα, and so N.T., Mat_24:14; Mar_13:14; Luk_16:15; Rev_17:4-5; Rev_21:27), any object of detestation or disgust (Lev_18:22; Deu_7:25); and applied to an impure or detestable action (Eze_22:11; Eze_30:26; Mal_2:11, etc.); to any thing causing a ceremonial pollution (Gen_43:32; Gen_46:34; Deu_14:3); but more especially to idols (Lev_18:22; Lev_20:13; Deu_7:26; 1Ki_11:5; 1Ki_11:7; 2Ki_23:13); and also to food offered to idols (Zec_9:7); and to filth of every kind (Nah_3:6). There are several texts in which the word occurs, to which, on account of their peculiar interest or difficulty, especial attention has been drawn. SEE IDOLATRY.
The first is Gen_43:32 : “The Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination (תּוֹעֵבָה) unto the Egyptians.” This is best explained by the fact that the Egyptians considered themselves ceremonially defiled if they ate with any strangers. The primary reason appears to have been that the cow was the most sacred animal among the Egyptians, and the eating of it was abhorrent to them; whereas it was both eaten and sacrificed by the Jews and most other nations, who, on that account, were abominable in their eyes. It was for this, as we learn from Herodotus (2. 41), that no Egyptian man or woman would kiss a Greek on the mouth, or would use the cleaver of a Greek, or his spit, or his dish, or would taste the flesh of even clean beef (that is, of oxen) that had been cut with a Grecian carving-knife. It is true that Wilkinson (Anc. Egyptians, 3, 358) ascribes this to the disgust of the fastidiously-clean Egyptians at the comparatively foul habits of their Asiatic and other neighbors; but it seems scarcely fair to take the facts of the father of history, and ascribe them to any other than the very satisfactory reasons which he assigns for them. We collect, then, that it was as foreigners, not pointedly as Hebrews, that it was an abomination for the Egyptians to eat with the brethren of Joseph. The Jews themselves subsequently exemplified the same practice; for in later times they held it unlawful to eat or drink with foreigners in their houses, or even to enter their dwellings (Joh_18:28; Act_10:28; Act_11:3); for not only were the houses of Gentiles unclean (Mishna, Ohaloth, 18:7), but they themselves rendered unclean those in whose house they lodged (Maimonides, Mishcab a Morheb. 12:12) which was carrying the matter farther than the Egyptians (see also Mitsvoth Tora, 148). We do not trace these instances, however, before the Captivity (see J. D. Winkler, Animadvers. Philol. 2:175 sq.). SEE UNCLEANNESS.
The second passage is Gen_46:34. Joseph is telling his brethren how to conduct themselves when introduced to the king of Egypt; and he instructs them that when asked concerning their occupation they should answer, “Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers.” This last clause has emphasis, as showing that they were hereditary nomade pastors; and the reason is added, “That ye may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination (תּוֹעֵבָה) unto the Egyptians.” In the former instance they were “an abomination” as strangers, with whom the Egyptians could not eat; here they are a further abomination as nomade shepherds, whom it was certain that the Egyptians, for that reason, would locate in the border land of Goshen, and not in the heart of the country. That it was nomade shepherds, or Bedouins, and not simply shepherds, who were abominable to the Egyptians, is evinced by the fact that the Egyptians themselves paid great attention to the rearing of cattle. This is shown by their sculptures and paintings, as well as by the offer of this very king of Egypt to make such of Jacob's sons as were men of activity “overseers of his cattle” (Gen_47:6). For this aversion to nomade pastors two reasons are given; ‘and it is not necessary that we should choose between them, for both of them were, it is most likely, concurrently true. One is, that the inhabitants of Lower and Middle Egypt had previously been invaded by, and had remained for many years subject to, a tribe of nomade shepherds, who had only of late been expelled, and a native dynasty restored-the grievous oppression of the Egyptians by these pastoral invaders, and the insult with which their religion had been treated. SEE HYKSOS. The other reason, not necessarily superseding the former, but rather strengthening it, is that the Egyptians, as a settled and civilized people, detested the lawless and predatory habits of the wandering shepherd tribes, which then, as now, bounded the valley of the Nile and occupied the Arabias — a state of feeling which modern travelers describe as still existing between the Bedouin and fellahs of modern Egypt, and indeed between the same classes everywhere in Turkey, Persia, and the neighboring regions (see Critici Sac. Thes. Nov. 1, 220). SEE SHEPHERD.
The third marked use of this word again occurs in Egypt. The king tells the Israelites to offer to their god the sacrifices which they desired, without going to the desert for that purpose. To this Moses objects that they should have to sacrifice to the Lord ‘“the abomination (תּוֹעֵבָה) ‘ of the Egyptians,” who would thereby be highly exasperated against them (Exo_8:26). A reference back to the first explanation shows that this “abomination” was the cow, the only animal which all the Egyptians agreed in holding sacred; whereas, in the great sacrifice which the Hebrews proposed to hold, not only would heifers be offered, but the people would feast upon their flesh (see J. C. Dietric, Antiquitates, p. 136). SEE APIS.
A fourth expression of marked import is the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (שַׁקּיּוֹ מְשֹׁמֵם, Dan_11:31; Sept. βδέλυγμα ἠφανισμένον, or שַׁקּיּוֹ שֹׁמֵם, Dan_12:11; Sept. τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, literally, filthiness of the desolation, or, rather, desolating filthiness), which, without doubt, means the idol or idolatrous apparatus which the desolater of Jerusalem should establish in the holy places (see Hitzig, in loc.). This appears to have been (in its first application) a prediction of the pollution of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes, who caused an idolatrous altar to be built on the altar of burnt offerings, whereon unclean things were offered to Jupiter Olympius, to whom the temple itself was dedicated (see Hoffman, in loc.). Josephus distinctly refers to this as the accomplishment of Daniel's prophecy; as does the author of the first book of Maccabees, in declaring that “they set up the abomination of desolation (τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως) upon the altar” (1Ma_1:59; 1Ma_6:7; 2Ma_6:2-5; Joseph. Ant. 12:5, 4; 12:7, 6). The phrase is quoted by Jesus in the same form (Mat_24:15), and is applied by him to what was to take place at the advance of the Romans against Jerusalem. They who saw “the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place” were enjoined to “flee to the mountains.” This may with probability be referred to the advance of the Roman army against the city with their image-crowned standards, to which idolatrous honors were paid, and which the Jews regarded as idols. The unexpected retreat and discomfiture of the Roman forces afforded such as were mindful of our Savior's prophecy an opportunity of obeying the injunction which it contained. That the Jews themselves regarded the Roman standards as abominations is shown by the fact that, in deference to their known aversion, the Roman soldiers quartered in Jerusalem forbore to introduce their standards into the city; and on one occasion, when Pilate gave orders that they should be carried in by night, so much stir was made in the matter by the principal inhabitants that, for the sake of peace, the governor was eventually induced to give up the point (Joseph. Ant. 18:3, 1). Those, however, who suppose that “the holy place” of the text must be the temple itself, may find the accomplishment of the prediction in the fact that, when the city had been taken by the Romans and the holy house destroyed, the soldiers brought their standards in due form to the temple, set them up over the eastern gate, and offered sacrifice to them (Joseph. War, 6:6, 1); for (as Havercamp notes from Tertullian, Apol. c. 16:162) “almost the entire religion of the Roman camp consisted in worshipping the ensigns, swearing by the ensigns, and in preferring the ensigns before all the other gods.” Nor was this the last appearance of “the abomination of desolation in the holy place;” for not only did Hadrian, with studied insult to the Jews, set up the figure of a boar over the Bethlehem gate of the city (AElia Capitolina) which rose upon the site and ruins of Jerusalem (Euseb. Chron. 1. 1, p. 45, ed. 1658), but he erected a temple to Jupiter upon the site of the Jewish temple (Dion Cass. 49. 12), and caused an image of himself to be set up in the part which answered to the most holy place (Nicephorus Callist. 3:24). This was a consummation of all the abominations which the iniquities of the Jews brought upon their holy place
(see Auberlen, Daniel and the Revelation, p. 161 sq.). SEE JERUSALEM.
In Dan_9:27, the phrase is somewhat different and peculiar: מְשֹׁמֵם
יְעִל כְּנ שַׁקּוּצַים, which (as pointed in the text) must be rendered, And upon the wing of filthinesses that desolates, or (there shall be) a desolater; but the Sept. has ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων (v. r. τῆς ἐρημώσεως) ἔσται, Vulg. et erit in templo abominatio desolationis; a sense that is followed by Christ in his allusion (Mat_24:15), and which may be attained by a slight change of pointing (כָּנָ in the “absolute”), and so rendering, “And upon the wing (of the sacred edifice there shall be) filthinesses, even a desolater.” Rosenmüller (Scholia in Vet. Test. in loc.) understands the “wing” (כָּנָ) to signify the hostile army or battalion detached for that purpose (a sense corresponding to the Latin ala), at the head of which the proud Gentile general should enter the city. Stuart, on the other hand (Commentary on Daniel, in loc.), likewise interpreting the whole passage as denoting exclusively the pollution of the temple caused by Antiochus, translates the verse in question thus, “And over the winged-fowl of abominations shall be a waster,” and applies the “wing” (כָּנָ, i. q. “fowl,” in our version “overspreading”) to a “statue of Jupiter Olympius erected in the temple; and this statue, as is well known, usually stood over an eagle at its feet with wide-spread wings.” Both these interpretations, however, appear too fanciful. It is preferable to render
כָּנָŠ, with Gesenius (Thesaur. Heb. p. 698), First (Hebrews Handw. s.v.), and the marginal translation, a battlement, i.e. of the temple, like πτερύγιον, in Mat_4:5; both words meaning literally a wing, and applied in each case to a corner or summit of the wall inclosing the temple. Neither can we so easily dispose of our Savior's reference to this prophecy, since he speaks of it as about to be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. It appears to tally completely with that event in all its particulars, and to have had at most but a primary and typical fulfillment in the case of Antiochus (q.v.). (For the dates involved in this coincidence, see the Meth. Quar. Review, July, 1850, p. 494 sq.) SEE SEVENTY WEEKS. The distinction attempted by some (Alford and Olshausen, in loc.) between the events referred to in this passage and in Luk_21:20, is nugatory, for they are obviously parallel (see Strong's Harmony, § 123). Meyer (in loc.) thinks the pollution designated was but “the horrible desolation by the Romans of the temple area generally,” but the terms are more explicit than this. The allusion cannot in any case be to a profanation of the sacred precincts by the Jews themselves, for the excesses of the Zealots (q.v.) during the final siege (Josephus, War, 4:3, 7) were never directed to the introduction of idolatry there; whereas the first act of heathen occupancy was the erection of the standards crowned with the bird of victory — a circumstance that may be hinted at in the peculiar term “wing” here employed (see F. Nolan, Warburton Lect. p. 183). SEE BANNER.
A still more important difference among commentators, as to the meaning of the expression in question, has respect to the point, whether the abomination, which somehow should carry along with it the curse of desolation, ought to be understood of the idolatrous and corrupt practices which should inevitably draw down desolating inflictions of vengeance, or of the heathen powers and weapons of war that should be the immediate instruments of executing them. The following are the reasons assigned for understanding the expression of the former:
1. By far the most common use of the term abomination or abominations, when referring to spiritual things, and especially to things involving severe judgments and sweeping desolation, is in respect to idolatrous and other foul corruptions. It was the pollution of the first temple, or the worship connected with it by such things, which in a whole series of passages is described as the abominations that provoked God to lay it in ruins (2Ki_21:2-13; Jer_7:10-14; Eze_5:11; Eze_7:8-9; Eze_7:20-23). And our Lord very distinctly intimated, by referring on another occasion to some of these passages, that as the same wickedness substantially was lifting itself up anew, the same retributions of evil might certainly be expected to chastise them (Mat_21:13).
2. When reference is made to the prophecy in Daniel it is coupled with a word, “Whoso readeth let him understand,” which seems evidently to point to a profound spiritual meaning in the prophecy, such as thoughtful and serious minds alone could apprehend. But this could only be the case if abominations in the moral sense were meant; for the defiling and desolating effect of heathen armies planting themselves in the holy place was what a child might perceive. Such dreadful and unseemly intruders were but the outward signs of the real abominations, which cried for vengeance in the ear of heaven. The compassing of Jerusalem with armies, therefore, mentioned in Luk_21:20, ready to bring the desolation, is not to be regarded as the same with the abomination of desolation; it indicated a farther stage of matters.
3. The abominations which were the cause of the desolations are ever spoken of as springing up from within, among the covenant people themselves, not as invasions from without. They are so represented in Daniel also (Dan_11:30; Dan_11:32; Dan_12:9-10); and that the Jews themselves, the better sort of them at least, so understood the matter, is plain from 1Ma_1:54-57, where, with reference to the two passages of Daniel just noticed, the heathen-inclined party in Israel are represented, in the time of Antiochus, as the real persons who “set up the abomination of desolation and built idol altars;” comp. also 2Ma_4:15-17. (See Hengstenberg on the Genuineness of Daniel, ch. 3, § 3; and Christology, at Dan_9:27, with the authorities there referred to.) These arguments, however, seem to be outweighed by the conclusive historical fact that the material ensigns of paganism were actually erected both by the Syrian and Roman conquerors in the place in question, and in so plainly physical a prediction, it is most natural to suppose that both Daniel and our Lord intended to refer to this palpable circumstance. SEE DESOLATION.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores