Mark 13:14

• When you see the abomination of desolation: Mark did not explain what this object would be, but Jewish audiences in the first century were familiar with the term. The prophet Daniel had foretold that such an object would stand in the temple in Jerusalem (Daniel 9:27; 11:31). Many Jews understood the events in Jerusalem from 167 to 164 BC, during the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, to be a fulfillment of that prophecy.

  The deuterocanonical book of 1 Maccabees (a book accepted as Scripture by some Christian traditions), was written around 100 BC. It tells about the rule of Antiochus. It says that Antiochus and his followers set up “sacrilegious object causing desecration on top of the altar for burnt offerings,” 1 Maccabees 1:54, 59).

• standing where it should not be: Given the historical context and references to Jerusalem and Judea, this phrase clearly refers to something inappropriate happening in the temple in Jerusalem (Mark 13:2, 4,14).

• (let the reader understand): Mark urged his readers to focus on this sign, indicating it required careful thought and understanding. Mark wanted his audience to watch for a sign similar to what happened during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.

• Although the phrase the abomination of desolation is grammatically neuter, the word standing is grammatically masculine. This may suggest a person behind the act, but it is not certain. The phrase can still refer to a thing or event.

  Scholars suggest several possible meanings for the abomination of desolation. These include:

  1. The emperor Caligula. In AD 39–40, he tried to place a statue of himself in the temple (Josephus, Antiquities 12.8.2–3).

  2. Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea from AD 26–36. He brought Roman soldiers into Judea carrying military flags that Jews saw as idolatrous (Josephus, War 2.9.2–3).

  3. The Zealots, a Jewish revolutionary group. Around AD 69–70, they committed violent acts in the temple, chose an unqualified high priest, "entered the sanctuary with polluted feet" (Josephus, War 4.3.4–8).

  4. The Roman general Titus. After he conquered Jerusalem in AD 70, he forced entry into the temple (Josephus, War 6.4.7).

  5. Titus' soldiers. They set up their military flags in the temple, offered sacrifices to them, and declared Titus emperor (Josephus, War 6.6.1).

  6. The destruction of the temple itself in AD 70.

  7. A future event. Some connect this to the coming of the antichrist (a future opponent of God; see 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4).

  The context and source of this expression help us rule out some of these views. In Daniel and 1 Maccabees, the phrase refers to the Temple, its altar, and its sacrifices. In Mark 13:14–20, it is a sign that tells people to flee Judea. This sign must happen while there is still time to escape (before the Roman army surrounds Jerusalem).

  Explanations 1 and 2 are too early. They would not have been a clear sign to flee Judea. They also did not actually defile the temple, and Christians did not leave Jerusalem at that time.

  Explanations 4–6 are too late. They happened after Titus entered Jerusalem. By then, there was no time left to escape.

  Explanation 7 refers to a future event. It does not match the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which is the focus of 13:14–20. Also, the coming of the antichrist would not be limited to Judea.

  Explanation 3 fits best. It took place in AD 69–70, shortly before Titus surrounded Jerusalem. This timing would have allowed a short time for Christians to leave the city. It also involved actions that defiled the holy place in the temple.

  This view also helps distinguish between the sign and what happens next. The sign is the abomination of desolation, and what happens next is the great suffering and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

• then: At the appearance of the abomination, those in Judea were to flee to the mountains. The early church historian Eusebius says that a prophetic message (a message from God) was given to the church in Jerusalem. This message caused them to leave the city before it was destroyed (Eusebius, Church History 3.5.3).

Jesus now gave the sign requested in 13:4 and instructed his followers how to respond when they saw it. In 13:5–13, they were told not to be alarmed. Here they are told that those in Judea must flee to the hills.

• Scholars often divide this section into two parts, 13:5–13 and 13:14–23. The first part is often interpreted as describing the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in AD 70, while the second part is taken to describe the coming of the Son of Man in the future. It is best, however, to interpret all of 13:5–23 as describing events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 because:

  1. 13:5–23 is the answer from Jesus to the two questions (13:4) that deal with the destruction of Jerusalem (13:2);

  2. The commands to flee Judea (13:14–16), the woe announced upon pregnant and nursing women (13:17), and the prayer that it not take place in winter (13:18) make sense if they refer to the events of AD 70 but not if they refer to the future return of Christ;

  3. Three warnings connect this passage (13:5, 9, 23) connect this passage together and show that 13:5–23 should be understood as a unit.

• The section is arranged as a chiasm (a literary pattern shaped like an X). The themes appear in this order:

  • A: Deceivers claim to be the Messiah (13:5–6).

    • B: There are reports of fighting and natural disasters (13:7–8).

      • C: There is persecution of believers (13:9–13).

    • B': The fighting in Judea and resulting suffering begin (13:14–20).

  • A': Deceivers claim to be the Messiah (13:21–23).

This passage brings to a conclusion the section begun at 11:1. Israel did not produce spiritual fruit (11:12–26; 12:38–40). Its leaders were opposed to God's chosen one, the Christ (11:1–11, 27–33; 12:13–17, 18–27). This would result in judgment and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.