What is the Abomination of Desolation?

[GaryA]

The Book of Daniel describes something called 'the abomination that maketh desolate':

Daniel 11:31 - And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Daniel 12:11 - And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

What is it? Has it happened already?

According to Daniel 9:27, the Abomination of Desolation happens in the 'midst of the week':

Daniel 9:27 - And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Isn't that when the Crucifixion happened?

No! Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the 'Abomination of Desolation'!

Rather, it is talking about abominations in general - the many [various] abominations in/of Israel.

Daniel 11:31 is specifically referring to the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation'.

Daniel 12:11 is making specific reference to the 'Abomination of Desolation' as referred to in Daniel 11:31.

Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the 'Abomination of Desolation' as referred to in Daniel 11:31.

Just because some form and use of the word 'abomination' exists in a verse together with some form and use of the word 'desolate' does not mean it is referring to the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation' - which occurred in 167 B.C.

Also - the words you bolded and underlined in the Daniel 9:27 verse above are not included within the 'midst of the week' statement in that same verse - the scope of which is [only] the words between the colon and the first/next comma after it.

Yes - the Crucifixion occurred 'in the midst of the week'; however, it had absolutely nothing to do with the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation' - which occurred in 167 B.C.

 

[Levib]

The reason I asked is because people speak of the first and second comings of Jesus, but if you do not see His coming in the verse as one of those comings, then there are more than 2 comings. So if there are more than 2, how many are there?

At least three in scripture, four if you count the resurrection.

There are many coming’s of Christ. I suppose it depends on how you number them. Is the resurrection the second coming of Christ? Sort of but not to Mark and Luke. There is also the Catching Away(Rapture), when Jesus will come and take the church. (Often considered the second coming). But that is as a ‘thief in the night’ not as ‘coming in his Kingdom (power). Then there is the coming of Armageddon where Jesus defends the Jews physically and places one foot on the mountain and one foot on the sea. That is Jesus coming in his Kingdom for sure except this precedes the millennial reign where Jesus and the saints will rule in person for 1000 years on earth. No one thinks either of those comings have happened. So that couldn’t have happened during the disciples lives. What did happen in their lives is Jesus rose from the dead and said “all power in heaven and earth has been given to me”. That also sounds like Jesus “coming in his kingdom”

This exact exchange is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. However, Matthew is the only one to say “the son of man coming”,

Mark 9:1 KJVS
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27 KJVS
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

 

[OMC]

No! Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the 'Abomination of Desolation'!

Rather, it is talking about abominations in general - the many [various] abominations in/of Israel.

Daniel 11:31 is specifically referring to the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation'.

Daniel 12:11 is making specific reference to the 'Abomination of Desolation' as referred to in Daniel 11:31.

Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the 'Abomination of Desolation' as referred to in Daniel 11:31.

Just because some form and use of the word 'abomination' exists in a verse together with some form and use of the word 'desolate' does not mean it is referring to the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation' - which occurred in 167 B.C.

Also - the words you bolded and underlined in the Daniel 9:27 verse above are not included within the 'midst of the week' statement in that same verse - the scope of which is [only] the words between the colon and the first/next comma after it.

Yes - the Crucifixion occurred 'in the midst of the week'; however, it had absolutely nothing to do with the one-and-only real-and-true actual bona fide [prophetic] 'Abomination of Desolation' - which occurred in 167 B.C.

I'm sorry but this collapses under the actual structure of Daniel’s Hebrew.
Daniel 9:27 does use the same technical pairing—šiqqûṣîm (abominations) and šōmēm (desolation)—that Daniel later uses in 11:31 and 12:11, and the grammar does not treat them as “general abominations” but as a specific cultic desecration tied to the cessation of sacrifice.
Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 expand the pattern, not redefine it; they describe the Antiochus event as a historical instantiation of the same category introduced in Daniel 9.
Your argument that 9:27 cannot refer to the same event because the words appear outside “the midst of the week” clause is a syntactical mistake:
Hebrew does not restrict referents by English punctuation, and the participial phrase “on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate” is directly tied to the covenant‑breaking act in the middle of the week.
The text itself never says the “one‑and‑only bona fide abomination” occurred in 167 B.C.; Jesus explicitly places the abomination future to His ministry (Matt 24:15), which means He did not treat Antiochus as the final referent.
Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 form a prophetic pattern—a desecrator, a cessation of sacrifice, and a desolating act—not three unrelated phenomena.

 

[GWH]

The Book of Daniel describes something called 'the abomination that maketh desolate':

Daniel 11:31 - And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

Daniel 12:11 - And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

What is it? Has it happened already?

According to Daniel 9:27, the Abomination of Desolation happens in the 'midst of the week':

Daniel 9:27 - And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

Isn't that when the Crucifixion happened?

I don't know what the A of D is, but I have always wondered whether it is purely coincidence that a-bombs cause desolation.

 

[Cameron143]

At least three in scripture, four if you count the resurrection.

There are many coming’s of Christ. I suppose it depends on how you number them. Is the resurrection the second coming of Christ? Sort of but not to Mark and Luke. There is also the Catching Away(Rapture), when Jesus will come and take the church. (Often considered the second coming). But that is as a ‘thief in the night’ not as ‘coming in his Kingdom (power). Then there is the coming of Armageddon where Jesus defends the Jews physically and places one foot on the mountain and one foot on the sea. That is Jesus coming in his Kingdom for sure except this precedes the millennial reign where Jesus and the saints will rule in person for 1000 years on earth. No one thinks either of those comings have happened. So that couldn’t have happened during the disciples lives. What did happen in their lives is Jesus rose from the dead and said “all power in heaven and earth has been given to me”. That also sounds like Jesus “coming in his kingdom”

This exact exchange is recorded in Matthew, Mark and Luke. However, Matthew is the only one to say “the son of man coming”,

Mark 9:1 KJVS
And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

Luke 9:27 KJVS
But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.

Right. Neither is there anything in scripture which precludes Christ from coming more often than that. But when Jesus says some will not taste death till He comes, that requires a first century coming. Further, when it says with power that means it is publicly manifest.

Regardless of whether one feels they can identify specifically the exact event, Jesus came publicly in the first century. It was not done secretly.

 

[OMC]

Right. Neither is there anything in scripture which precludes Christ from coming more often than that. But when Jesus says some will not taste death till He comes, that requires a first century coming. Further, when it says with power that means it is publicly manifest.

Regardless of whether one feels they can identify specifically the exact event, Jesus came publicly in the first century. It was not done secretly

The claim that Jesus “came publicly in the first century” because of Matthew 16:28 (“some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”) misunderstands both the language and the event Jesus is referring to.
The NT itself identifies the fulfillment as the Transfiguration, where Peter, James, and John literally “saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” in unveiled glory (Matt 17:1–8), a preview of the final appearing, not the final appearing itself.
The phrase “coming in His kingdom” does not always mean the eschatological return — it can mean a revelatory manifestation of royal authority, which is exactly how Jesus uses it.
Likewise, “with power” does not require a global, public descent; it describes the visible display of divine majesty witnessed by the chosen disciples.
Nothing in Matthew 16:28 teaches a first‑century Second Coming, and nothing in the NT records a public, cosmic return of Christ in that era; the only “coming” Jesus says will be universally visible is the one in Matthew 24:30, and that event did not occur in the first century. You are collapsing preview into consummation, but Jesus Himself separates them: the Transfiguration is the preview, the Parousia is the consummation.

 

[Cameron143]

The claim that Jesus “came publicly in the first century” because of Matthew 16:28 (“some standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”) misunderstands both the language and the event Jesus is referring to.
The NT itself identifies the fulfillment as the Transfiguration, where Peter, James, and John literally “saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” in unveiled glory (Matt 17:1–8), a preview of the final appearing, not the final appearing itself.
The phrase “coming in His kingdom” does not always mean the eschatological return — it can mean a revelatory manifestation of royal authority, which is exactly how Jesus uses it.
Likewise, “with power” does not require a global, public descent; it describes the visible display of divine majesty witnessed by the chosen disciples.
Nothing in Matthew 16:28 teaches a first‑century Second Coming, and nothing in the NT records a public, cosmic return of Christ in that era; the only “coming” Jesus says will be universally visible is the one in Matthew 24:30, and that event did not occur in the first century. You are collapsing preview into consummation, but Jesus Himself separates them: the Transfiguration is the preview, the Parousia is the consummation.

That's one view. But NT writings often speak of the imminent return of Christ. They weren't speaking about the transfiguration.

 

[OMC]

That's one view. But NT writings often speak of the imminent return of Christ. They weren't speaking about the transfiguration.

Brother, the NT’s language of “imminence” never means “Jesus must return within the lifetime of the apostles,” nor does it imply a first‑century Parousia; it means His return is certain, next in sequence, and could occur at any time, so believers must live in readiness.

 

[Cameron143]

Brother, the NT’s language of “imminence” never means “Jesus must return within the lifetime of the apostles,” nor does it imply a first‑century Parousia; it means His return is certain, next in sequence, and could occur at any time, so believers must live in readiness.

Again, just another view. A simple reading of the texts clearly indicates that NT writers were expecting a return in the 1st century.

 

[OMC]

Again, just another view. A simple reading of the texts clearly indicates that NT writers were expecting a return in the 1st century.

Scripture is not of any one man's interpretation, the NT writers never say “Jesus will return in our lifetime”; what you’re calling a “simple reading” is actually reading assumption into idiom.
Imminence language—“near,” “at hand,” “soon,” “we who are alive”—is the same prophetic posture used in day of the Lord texts throughout Scripture: the next event in God’s plan is always treated as impending, never scheduled.
Paul uses “we” because he is speaking as part of the church, not predicting his own survival;
Peter and James use “near” to demand vigilance, not to set a date;
John’s “soon” in Revelation is covenant‑prophetic idiom, not a countdown.
None of them ever claim, “Christ will return before we die,” and none treat their own deaths as failed expectations.
Imminence is ethical urgency, not chronological prediction; the apostles preached readiness, not a first‑century Parousia

 

[Cameron143]

Scripture is not of any one man's interpretation, the NT writers never say “Jesus will return in our lifetime”; what you’re calling a “simple reading” is actually reading assumption into idiom.
Imminence language—“near,” “at hand,” “soon,” “we who are alive”—is the same prophetic posture used in day of the Lord texts throughout Scripture: the next event in God’s plan is always treated as impending, never scheduled.
Paul uses “we” because he is speaking as part of the church, not predicting his own survival;
Peter and James use “near” to demand vigilance, not to set a date;
John’s “soon” in Revelation is covenant‑prophetic idiom, not a countdown.
None of them ever claim, “Christ will return before we die,” and none treat their own deaths as failed expectations.
Imminence is ethical urgency, not chronological prediction; the apostles preached readiness, not a first‑century Parousia

Specific terminology is used as well that not only show imminency but act as time stamps. When language is employed that says some present would experience the event means the event will occur within their lifetimes.

 

[OMC]

Specific terminology is used as well that not only show imminency but act as time stamps. When language is employed that says some present would experience the event means the event will occur within their lifetimes.

You’re treating “some standing here” and “we who are alive” as literal time stamps, but Scripture uses present‑audience language for events far beyond the hearers’ lifetimes (Matt 26:64; Joel; Zephaniah; Isaiah). Matthew 16:28 points to the Transfiguration, not the Parousia; 1 Thess 4:17’s “we” is the church’s collective voice; Revelation’s “soon” is prophetic idiom, not a countdown. None of these texts schedule Christ’s return; they express the posture of imminence. The apostles never treat their deaths as failed expectations. The tension comes from reading idiom as timetable

 

[Cameron143]

You’re treating “some standing here” and “we who are alive” as literal time stamps, but Scripture uses present‑audience language for events far beyond the hearers’ lifetimes (Matt 26:64; Joel; Zephaniah; Isaiah). Matthew 16:28 points to the Transfiguration, not the Parousia; 1 Thess 4:17’s “we” is the church’s collective voice; Revelation’s “soon” is prophetic idiom, not a countdown. None of these texts schedule Christ’s return; they express the posture of imminence. The apostles never treat their deaths as failed expectations. The tension comes from reading idiom as timetable

Show me in those passages where it says that those texts say that some present would experience those things.

 

[OMC]

Show me in those passages where it says that those texts say that some present would experience those things.

none of those passages ever say the hearers will personally experience the eschatological event—you’re reading participation into present‑audience language the text itself never claims.

 

[Cameron143]

none of those passages ever say the hearers will personally experience the eschatological event—you’re reading participation into present‑audience language the text itself never claims.

Incorrect. There are verses that say events will occur in hearers lifetimes. But I won't convince you.

Grace and peace.

 

[OMC]

Incorrect. There are verses that say events will occur in hearers lifetimes. But I won't convince you.

Grace and peace.

I'm not arguing with you personally, I'm just trying to show you what scripture says. One last shot at it and I'll stop... for now, lol.
Not one of the passages you’re appealing to ever says the hearers will live to see the eschatological event;
that claim is imported, not stated. I am not saying you imported it, I'm saying the system you were taught did.
Matthew 16:28 never says “some of you will live until the Second Coming”; it says some will see the Son of Man in His kingdom, and Matthew immediately identifies that as the Transfiguration six days later.
Matthew 26:64 has Jesus telling the high priest “you will see the Son of Man coming”, which the high priest obviously did not live to see, proving present‑audience language does not guarantee participation.
Joel, Zephaniah, and Isaiah all say “the day of the Lord is near” to people who lived centuries before the eschatological day, showing the same idiom.
1 Thess 4:17 never says “we will survive until the Parousia”; Paul uses the collective ‘we’ of the church.
Revelation’s “soon” never says “you living now will see this”; it is prophetic imminence idiom.
So the proof is simple: none of these texts state that the hearers will personally experience the final event — that conclusion is supplied by a system, not by the verses themselves. Am I helping at all here? lol

 

[Davidstarr]

I'm sorry but this collapses under the actual structure of Daniel’s Hebrew.
Daniel 9:27 does use the same technical pairing—šiqqûṣîm (abominations) and šōmēm (desolation)—that Daniel later uses in 11:31 and 12:11, and the grammar does not treat them as “general abominations” but as a specific cultic desecration tied to the cessation of sacrifice.
Daniel 11:31 and 12:11 expand the pattern, not redefine it; they describe the Antiochus event as a historical instantiation of the same category introduced in Daniel 9.
Your argument that 9:27 cannot refer to the same event because the words appear outside “the midst of the week” clause is a syntactical mistake:
Hebrew does not restrict referents by English punctuation, and the participial phrase “on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate” is directly tied to the covenant‑breaking act in the middle of the week.
The text itself never says the “one‑and‑only bona fide abomination” occurred in 167 B.C.; Jesus explicitly places the abomination future to His ministry (Matt 24:15), which means He did not treat Antiochus as the final referent.
Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 form a prophetic pattern—a desecrator, a cessation of sacrifice, and a desolating act—not three unrelated phenomena.

I agree with Gary. Dan 9:27 is not the abomination of desolation.
In Dan 11:31, 12:11; Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14 they speak of a singular power (called "an abomination") which makes desolate.
Dan 9:27 speaks of one who makes desolate an overspreading of abominations. Not at all the same thing.
Which happens at the same time as the sacrifice and oblation is to cease in the middle of that last week.

And, no, Antiochus Epiphanes is not in prophecy. The specific details of what the prophecies say of the little horn of Dan 8 just don't fit.
That is Jesuit teachings from the early 1600s.

 

[OMC]

I agree with Gary. Dan 9:27 is not the abomination of desolation.
In Dan 11:31, 12:11; Matt 24:15 and Mark 13:14 they speak of a singular power (called "an abomination") which makes desolate.
Dan 9:27 speaks of one who makes desolate an overspreading of abominations. Not at all the same thing.
Which happens at the same time as the sacrifice and oblation is to cease in the middle of that last week.

And, no, Antiochus Epiphanes is not in prophecy. The specific details of what the prophecies say of the little horn of Dan 8 just don't fit.
That is Jesuit teachings from the early 1600s.

Daniel 9:27 does use the same technical pairing — šiqqûṣîm (abominations) and šōmēm (desolation) — that Daniel uses in 11:31 and 12:11, and Hebrew grammar does not treat “abominations” in 9:27 as a random pile of sins but as the cultic desecration tied to the cessation of sacrifice; the participial phrase “on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate” is syntactically bound to the covenant‑breaking act in the middle of the week, not floating off as a separate phenomenon.
Your claim that 9:27 speaks of “an overspreading of abominations” while 11:31 and 12:11 speak of “a singular abomination” is not a textual distinction — it’s an English gloss;
the Hebrew uses the same root and the same desolation formula, and Daniel’s pattern is consistent: a desecrator, a halted sacrifice, and a desolating act.
Antiochus is in Daniel’s prophecy (Dan 8, Dan 11:21–35) because the historical details match the Seleucid crisis precisely — the little horn’s rise, the trampling of the sanctuary, the removal of the daily sacrifice, the setting up of the abomination, and the persecution of the faithful — and Jesus Himself places the abomination future to His ministry (Matt 24:15), which means He treats Antiochus as a type, not the final fulfillment.
The “Jesuit invention” claim is internet mythology; the early church fathers — Hippolytus, Athanasius, Jerome — all identified Antiochus in Daniel centuries before the Jesuits existed. The text itself shows Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 forming a single prophetic pattern, not three unrelated events.

 

[HeIsHere]

I'm not arguing with you personally, I'm just trying to show you what scripture says. One last shot at it and I'll stop... for now, lol.
Not one of the passages you’re appealing to ever says the hearers will live to see the eschatological event;
that claim is imported, not stated. I am not saying you imported it, I'm saying the system you were taught did.
Matthew 16:28 never says “some of you will live until the Second Coming”; it says some will see the Son of Man in His kingdom, and Matthew immediately identifies that as the Transfiguration six days later.
Matthew 26:64 has Jesus telling the high priest “you will see the Son of Man coming”, which the high priest obviously did not live to see, proving present‑audience language does not guarantee participation.
Joel, Zephaniah, and Isaiah all say “the day of the Lord is near” to people who lived centuries before the eschatological day, showing the same idiom.
1 Thess 4:17 never says “we will survive until the Parousia”; Paul uses the collective ‘we’ of the church.
Revelation’s “soon” never says “you living now will see this”; it is prophetic imminence idiom.
So the proof is simple: none of these texts state that the hearers will personally experience the final event — that conclusion is supplied by a system, not by the verses themselves. Am I helping at all here? lol

YOU is you.!

Here is one of many verses which make your presuppositions null and void.

For, "Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay;
Hebrews 10:37 ESV

"For yet a little while."
The Greek in the letter is very expressive and emphatic.
The author used a word which signifies "a little while," but then for further emphasis, the particle meaning "very" is also added!!

This indicates without any doubt the author is intensifying the information even more by repeating it, therefore rendering this clause as:
"For yet a very, very little while, and He that shall come will come."

 

[HeIsHere]

I'm not arguing with you personally, I'm just trying to show you what scripture says. One last shot at it and I'll stop... for now, lol.
Not one of the passages you’re appealing to ever says the hearers will live to see the eschatological event;
that claim is imported, not stated. I am not saying you imported it, I'm saying the system you were taught did.
Matthew 16:28 never says “some of you will live until the Second Coming”; it says some will see the Son of Man in His kingdom, and Matthew immediately identifies that as the Transfiguration six days later.
Matthew 26:64 has Jesus telling the high priest “you will see the Son of Man coming”, which the high priest obviously did not live to see, proving present‑audience language does not guarantee participation.
Joel, Zephaniah, and Isaiah all say “the day of the Lord is near” to people who lived centuries before the eschatological day, showing the same idiom.
1 Thess 4:17 never says “we will survive until the Parousia”; Paul uses the collective ‘we’ of the church.
Revelation’s “soon” never says “you living now will see this”; it is prophetic imminence idiom.
So the proof is simple: none of these texts state that the hearers will personally experience the final event — that conclusion is supplied by a system, not by the verses themselves. Am I helping at all here? lol

Christ Jesus does not lie to the people to whom He is speaking! Audience relevance is always in effect and should never be dismissed, it is disingenuous to do so.

Google Genesis.....

The Day of the Lord in the Prophets
Prophets like Joel, Zephaniah, and Isaiah spoke to their immediate audiences about a "near" day of the Lord.

Historical Fulfillment: These warnings often pointed to upcoming, real crises like military invasions, famines, or the exile of nations.

Layered Prophecy: Prophetic speech frequently had a two-part meaning. It addressed a local event in the near future while also pointing to a final, ultimate judgment at the end of time.

Urgency: Using the word "near" stressed how serious the moral situation was, rather than giving a precise calendar date.