Troublesome Topic: The Stench of Desolation Spoken of by Daniel

1

The text says “hear wars” which is different than hearing of wars. The word “of” is not used in the original, and the word “wars” is not in the correct case to be able to assume the word “of.” To hear war means that it is here, happening all around you and you can hear the sounds firsthand.

2: “reports of wars”

“reports, instructions, hearsay or rumors.” “Reports” fits this context best. The idea of “rumors” is an outlier, it does not communicate the main idea behind this word. Rumors are things that may not be true; they create doubt about what is really going on. Jesus was not talking about something doubtful, but something very real that was going on. The only question was how close it was. He was saying, “you will hear the sounds of battle that has arrived at your doorstep, or at least reports that war is coming and getting closer.”

Wars and reports of wars, from a Jewish perspective would have pertained to their own struggle against Rome and infighting in their own ranks. The closer things got to AD 70 the hotter things got politically in Jerusalem. The war fever grew more intense in Judea at that time. I highly recommend that you read a historical novel by G.H. Henty call The Temple. In it he describes the political climate of the day as well as the infighting that was going on among the Jews at that time. Apparently we know from other historical records that there were at least three key Jewish leaders who were striving to get the entire Jewish population to rally behind them, each with numerous followers and they began to fight among themselves. In the end they each took control of a part of Jerusalem. There was much Jewish blood spilt by Jews during those days. The increased desire to fight against Rome and the infighting among the Jews could easily qualify as “wars and reports of wars.”

3

What I have rendered as “the purpose”: Many translations render this as “end” just like they do for verse 3. The words are similar but not the same. When the disciples asked the question in verse 3 they used a form of this word that has a prefix attached to make it stronger. Here it is the simple form without the prefix. It appears that the focus of the longer word is complete fulfillment, absolute completion, whereas the use of the simple word is more about a purpose or an aim. However, notice that Jesus said, “the purpose is not yet.” The only logical way to understand this is to say, “The purpose is not yet fulfilled.”

4

“Nation” literally means an ethnic group, and it is where we get out word “ethnic” from. It is not concerned with borders and governments, but with natural divisions of people by ethnicity, i.e. a common blood line, language, and culture.

At first glance this statement seems to be talking about all of history, because that is what history has been characterized by. Such events were not exclusive to the 40 years between Jesus and the destruction of the temple. However, there is another way to look at it. This can easily refer to the fact that the Roman emperors were continually expanding their empire through military conquests of other nations or empires. How peaceful was the Pax Romana? The answer depends on your perspective. While there was relative peace if you were a loyal Roman, every non-Roman could see only the high price associated with that “peace.” We must remember that history is usually written by the winners, and we seldom hear the voice of the losers. But we do have some records that express the opinions of people who opposed Rome, either from within the empire, or from without. A leader of British troops named Calgacus, said this about the Romans, “Robbery, butchery, and rapine, the liars call Empire; they create desolation and call it peace” (recorded by Tacitus in his work called On Britian and Germany).

5

“Famines” were usually caused by a lack of rain, so this statement is about nature and its weather patterns. The fact that humans do not get enough to eat during those times is the consequence of the weather pattern, which man can do nothing about.

6

Throughout the Old Testament earthquakes were always a demonstration of God’s power. When He wanted to get people’s attention one thing He could do was send an earthquake, something that only He could do, and something that requires an incredible amount of force – power. We think of the ground as solid and stationary. We build buildings and make roads on it. We trust it to hold whatever we build. Then God comes along and turns the ground into a liquid for a few seconds.

This verse is both a prediction of a few specifics leading up to the main event, and also a big-picture statement about demonstrations of power that have always been part of history. He was saying, “Man shows his power, and sometimes God shows His power. What is coming (the destruction of the temple) will have elements of both man’s power and God’s power. It may look like an event caused by man, but if you look for it, you will see God’s hand it in it too.”

7

The picture of “birth pains” was used to convey the idea of certainty and unpredictability at the same time. When a woman gets pregnant, she will certainly experience labor pains if things follow their natural process and she does not have a miscarriage (or an abortion). One can know with certainty that labor pains are coming. However, it is unpredictable when those labor pains will start or when they will finish with the actual birth. Thus it is a picture of something that is certain yet unpredictable. It also depicted a hardship getting worse and worse until the final moment when it is over. However, since He was referring to the destruction of the temple, the result which follows all those birth pains would not bring joy the way the birth of a child does. The destruction of the temple was certain because Jesus had said it would come, but its timing was unpredictable.

The destruction of the temple was indeed a long and painful process. Much of the pain and sorrow was caused by infighting among three rival groups of Jews. The length of the struggle is shown by the following timeline. The city was captured in AD 63, the Jews revolted in AD 66 and expelled the Romans from the city. By AD 69 most of the countryside had been retaken by the Romans and the rebels had fled into the city of Jerusalem for protection. In April of AD 70 General Titus actually besieged the city, but as the Passover approached, he allowed travelers to enter for the special religious holiday. Thus there were many more people present which caused food supplies to dwindle more quickly. At one point in the siege the leader of one of the three rivalling Jewish factions is said to have commanded and achieved the destruction of most of the food stored in the city in order to make his fighters more desperate and aggressive! The breach of the city wall by the Romans happened in August of that same year. A great number of men, women and children were massacred. The scene of the final battle was the temple itself. During the intense fighting, something inside the temple caught fire, but no one could stop fighting long enough to put it out. The Romans succeeded in capturing the temple, killing all the Jews inside, burning what would burn and later they tore the structure down stone by stone.

8

The followers of Jesus have been persecuted throughout all of church history (vv 9-12).

9: “become highly displeased”

In its active form the verb used here means “to cause someone to stumble by putting a snare, a trap or an obstacle in their way, or to cause to sin.” The passive form, which is used here, means “to become offended by something and no longer trust someone that should be trusted.” The “taking offense” that is described here is so strong that the person in question considers the person or the situation scandalous. We get our word “scandal” from this Greek word.

10

Did Jesus mean Jews hating Jews or Christians hating other Christians? Probably both. We must remember that Jesus was a Jew, and the first Christians were all Jews. They were both Jews and Christians. With only a few exception, they lived like Jews should live while also living like Christians should. He was definitely talking about Jews hating fellow Jews, and then Christians doing the same later on. In the paraphrase I have chosen to couch it as “their spiritual brothers” because that can refer to Jews or Christians.

These types of things happened between the dissenting factions of the Jews prior to the destruction of the temple and were so severe as to be noted in the historical records.

11: “Lawlessness”

Although the word can mean simply “wickedness, or sinfulness” it is built using the word “law” and turning it into the opposite of it, i.e. “without law.” This word paints a picture of indulgent actions that are totally against God’s standard. God alone sets the standard; human society cannot do so.

12: “Grow cold”

Up to this point in Matthew 24 Jesus has been addressing the part of their question about the end of the age which He connects directly to the destruction of the temple which took place in AD 70. There is nothing to indicate that He has changed gears. Verse 12 accurately describes many cultures at many times in history; but I think this entire first section is addressing the destruction of the temple.

What did it look like when their love grew cold? In the lead-up to the destruction of the temple the three Jewish factions refused to get along or work together. As things with Rome became more tense the fighting between the three grew worse and worse. There was hatred of fellow Jews. Many of the things they were thinking, feeling, and doing were contrary to God’s law established through Moses. Jesus was saying that all these terrible things would accompany the powerful confirmation that one age had been completed and the new age had indeed begun.

13

The context requires that we see enduring as refraining from lawlessness, maintaining the proper godly standard even when everyone else has gone mad.

14

Is this salvation spiritual, or physical or both? Well, Jesus does not say what they would be saved from. It could be saved from the wrath of the Romans, but usually, when a people group is punished for its sins, the entire people group suffers, not just the evil ones among them. Many righteous people have suffered for not trying to do something to combat the evil present in their culture. It could be that Jesus was talking about spiritual salvation – being saved from the punishment of sins. However, everything else in this passage so far has been about physical realities, not spiritual ideas. I think that Jesus purposefully left it ambiguous in order to communicate something to this effect: “The ones that remain committed to God’s standard and live accordingly, God will take note of and He will do right by them.” Jesus left it open-ended on purpose. Those that heard Him would know that the important thing is for us to live rightly, and leave the results to God who sees how we live and will recompense us in a way that is just and right.

15

“To see” and “to hear about” are not the same thing, so why have I chosen to say “hear about” in the paraphrase column? Very few people were present to see what Antiochus IV did in the temple, but everyone heard about it. They came to know about it, which was as good as seeing it in person. It was credible because it fit the reputation of Antiochus; he hated the Jews and was doing everything he could to stamp out the Jewish religion.

16

The word used here has the root meaning of “stench or filth.” It points to something that is “disgusting and abhorrent.” In this case it was perceived by the Jews as “filthy or disgusting” because it was an obvious violation of the protocol God established for the temple. In order for the people to demonstrate their reverence for God they had to show reverence to the place God had designated as the special meeting place for God and man. To fail to follow the regulations that set this place apart as unique was tantamount to saying, “Your god is not special, and not powerful; your god is nothing!” It was inconceivable to a Jew that such a thing would ever happen, and if it did, it would be the worst thing that could ever happen to the Jewish people.

17

This word simply means “desolation” and refers to a place that was once inhabited, useful, and well developed but has now been made uninhabitable, useless, without even a sign of development or improvement. The way these two words are put together tells me that the “stench” or defilement aspect of things would be a sign that the time for the desolation of that special place had arrived. Jesus could see that those two things would happen together.

18

The word that means “to stand” can also mean “to place, establish, appoint, or set up, to be ready, to be steadfast, to be safe and sound.” In the paraphrase column I have rendered it “safely entrenched” in order to combine the ideas of “safety, established, and steadfastness.”

19

This is a quote from Josephus. I cannot find conclusive evidence to help us understand if the pig flesh was sacrificed on one of the Jewish altars, or if it was a different altar erected in front of the statue of a foreign god which Antiochus had brought in. Josephus describes it with the words “he (Antiochus IV) compelled the Jews . . . to sacrifice swine’s flesh on the altar.” The use of the definite article “the altar” rather than no article at all, which we would interpret in English as “an altar,” points toward it being either the altar or sacrifice or the altar of incense, not a newly erected altar set up by Antiochus. However, some historians say Antiochus erected an statue of himself striking a pose that everyone would recognize as Zeus, with an altar in front of it. Any sacrifice made on that new altar would proclaim Antiochus as Zeus. In reality, historians are largely divided on this issue.rnrnJosephus did not tell us specifically, but from his words it seems probable that Antiochus forcibly established a daily sacrifice of a pig to Zeus on one of the altars (be it a Jewish altar or a new altar) in the temple at Jerusalem. Why would the Jewish priests agree to do this? Josephus indicates that some of the priests thought favorably of Antiochus and the changes he was making, plus Antiochus killed anyone who was opposed to them. Either way, the defilement of the temple was complete.rnrnDon’t be confused if you notice some historians saying Antiochus thought he was Zeus and some say he thought he was Jupiter. Zeus was the Greek name and Jupiter was the Roman name for the same god. The point is that Antiochus thought he was Zeus/Jupiter and acted as if he were the supreme authority over all things.

20: “those in Judea”

Jesus chose to say it this way because by the time they actually saw or heard that the defilement was happening, Jerusalem would be under siege and no one would get out or go in. But most had run to Jerusalem for safety because it had strong walls around it, whereas the small villages had no such protection and were easy targets for any armed force. So Jesus meant, anyone who can get to the mountains should do so. Everyone knew that there were many caves and even hand dug tunnels in those mountains and the Romans were unlikely to try to flush out every cave. So some people could possibly save their lives by hiding in caves – if they could find enough to eat.

21

Their roofs were almost flat with a low wall around them to keep someone from falling off. They were often accessed from the outside by stairs or a ladder. The people often stored shocks of grain on the roof to dry, or other things of value, so it was not uncommon for someone to be working on the roof of the house.

22

Does this mean return to the house, or just return to a tree or bush where he had placed his cloak? We cannot be sure, but either way a man would not want to be caught in public without his outer garment. Jesus was saying to not even care about appearances, only think about survival at that moment.

At the time when the temple caught on fire the Romans had besieged Jerusalem for months so why did Jesus admonish urgency? I believe it was a general statement intended to indicate that this event would be a major, unavoidable event. His words make it sound like it would be about timing, but the context and where He goes with this topic are about magnitude.

23

The Greek phrase does not say what a woman has in her womb, just that she has something there.

24

The Law included regulations about how much could be carried on the Sabbath and how far could be walked on the Sabbath. If the attacks of the Romans occurred on a Sabbath the Jews (including the disciples) would be faced with a choice between survival and maintaining proper religious protocol. To us it would seem like an obvious choice, but if they focused only on survival, they would have a guilty conscience after that. There have been other times when nature and ruthless men have worked together to multiply the suffering of the victims, but the strict religious regulations were an added factor.

Fortunately, the siege of Jerusalem started in April and the final destruction of the temple was completed in August, so it was not during the winter. Some attacks may have happened on the Sabbath, but not the final battle that destroyed the temple.

25: “there would be”

The verb used here is a future verb form and is therefore translated “will be” by most translators. However, the future tense can sometimes express uncertainty since the future, by nature, is uncertain. The uncertainty is clearly indicated in the previous verse by the words “Pray that your flight not be …” and confirmed by the fact that the event did not happen in winter or on the Sabbath. Thus “there would be” is justified in this context.