DANIEL 9:27 TWO CHARACTERS NOT ONE

[DurbanDude]

Most people don't realise that most bibles have TWO characters , HE who confirms the promise and then ONE/DESOLATOR (someone else) who sets up the abomination:

27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate NASB

27 And he will enter into a binding and irrevocable covenant with the many for one week (seven years), but in the middle of the week he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate AMPLIFIED

27 That leader will make firm an agreement with many people for seven years. He will stop the offerings and sacrifices after three and one-half years. A destroyer will do blasphemous things until the ordered end comes to the destroyed city NCV

27 And he shall confirm brit (covenant) with rabbim for one heptad; and in the midst of the heptad he shall cause the zevach and the minchah to cease, and on the kenaf (wing) of the abominations is one making desolate OJB

Knowing the precedent of the KJV of just one character, why then do MOST other translations then contradict this and describe two characters? Obviously something in the original text points to two characters. On the balance of logic it appears there is an EARLIER character who confirms a promise, and then a LATER character who sets up an abomination.

[ForHisglory]

Most people don't realise that most bibles have TWO characters , HE who confirms the promise and then ONE/DESOLATOR (someone else) who sets up the abomination:

27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate NASB

27 And he will enter into a binding and irrevocable covenant with the many for one week (seven years), but in the middle of the week he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate AMPLIFIED

27 That leader will make firm an agreement with many people for seven years. He will stop the offerings and sacrifices after three and one-half years. A destroyer will do blasphemous things until the ordered end comes to the destroyed city NCV

27 And he shall confirm brit (covenant) with rabbim for one heptad; and in the midst of the heptad he shall cause the zevach and the minchah to cease, and on the kenaf (wing) of the abominations is one making desolate OJB

Knowing the precedent of the KJV of just one character, why then do MOST other translations then contradict this and describe two characters? Obviously something in the original text points to two characters. On the balance of logic it appears there is an EARLIER character who confirms a promise, and then a LATER character who sets up an abomination.

The question is about pronouns, and yet in the Hebrew of this passage no pronoun is specified in regards to who makes desolate, therefore the translators make a decision based on their own view as to whether it is he or as in this case not specified then they choose a neutral "one" which could be the same individual or not.
As no one else is specified it logically makes sense for it to be the SAME individual.
What IS clear is that it is the SAME individual who makes the covenant as who stops sacrifices and offerings.
The clear connector then is that the one who causes this end to sacrifices is the one who makes desolate.

Corresponding verses which use the same Hebrew is Ezra 9:3 and 9:4 and 11:31
Ezra 9:3
HEB: וּזְקָנִ֔י וָאֵשְׁבָ֖ה מְשׁוֹמֵֽם׃
NAS: and my beard, and sat down appalled.
KJV: and sat down astonied.
INT: and my beard and sat appalled

Ezra 9:4
HEB: וַאֲנִי֙ יֹשֵׁ֣ב מְשׁוֹמֵ֔ם עַ֖ד לְמִנְחַ֥ת
NAS: to me, and I sat appalled until
KJV: and I sat astonied until the evening
INT: I sat appalled until offering

Daniel 9:27
HEB: כְּנַ֤ף שִׁקּוּצִים֙ מְשֹׁמֵ֔ם וְעַד־ כָּלָה֙
NAS: of abominations [will come] one who makes desolate,
KJV: of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation,
INT: the wing of abominations makes until A complete

Daniel 11:31
HEB: וְנָתְנ֖וּ הַשִּׁקּ֥וּץ מְשׁוֹמֵֽם׃
NAS: up the abomination of desolation.
KJV: the abomination that maketh desolate.
INT: will set the abomination of desolation

Notice ONLY in 9:27 do they insert the pronoun "one".

[DurbanDude]

The question is about pronouns, and yet in the Hebrew of this passage no pronoun is specified in regards to who makes desolate, therefore the translators make a decision based on their own view as to whether it is he or as in this case not specified then they choose a neutral "one" which could be the same individual or not.
As no one else is specified it logically makes sense for it to be the SAME individual.
What IS clear is that it is the SAME individual who makes the covenant as who stops sacrifices and offerings.
The clear connector then is that the one who causes this end to sacrifices is the one who makes desolate.

Yes definitely it is the same individual who makes (confirms) the covenant as who stops the sacrifice. All the texts agree on that.

Regarding the abomination, why do you think all these experts deliberately choose to introduce a second character when you believe there is a clear connector? (the original KJV translation has just the one character, but they chose to change it))

[ForHisglory]

Yes definitely it is the same individual who makes (confirms) the covenant as who stops the sacrifice. All the texts agree on that.

Regarding the abomination, why do you think all these experts deliberately choose to introduce a second character when you believe there is a clear connector? (the original KJV translation has just the one character, but they chose to change it))

These experts don't introduce a second character, rather they note that English requires some form of pronoun in order for the verb to be consistent with the original and for it to make sense in English. This is why they put "one".
The verb itself is in this form V‑Piel‑Prtcpl‑ms which is short for Verb with a Piel stem - Participle - Masculine Singular.

So it is complete correct to put "he" instead of "one" as the KJV does.
The word is:
מְשֹׁמֵ֔ם
from
shamem: to be desolated or appalled
Original Word: שָׁמֵם
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: shamem
Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-mame')
Definition: to be desolated or appalled

So the connection of the verb is to the abomination, which is an appaling abomination or a desolating abomination, or perhaps more correctly the abomination which desolates (or of desolation).
So the "second character" is actually referring to the abomination, yet the focus is not on the abomination but rather the one who is in the end desolated (and who caused the abomination).

IOW we have a person who causes things including setting up the abomination. We also have that the abomination causes desolation. So are there two characters or one? There are two causes, but the first is the ultimate cause. So the experts choose not to use "he" because that would mean that the reference in English is to the first person though the Hebrew shows it is the abomination which causes desolation. Which therefore is more accurate? Hence alternative renderings.

In the Greek it is rendered as:
βδελυγμαG946 N-NSN τωνG3588 T-GPF ερημωσεωνG2050 N-GPF
The detestable thing "that" makes desolation.

Dan 9:27* AndG2532 he shall strengthenG1412 covenantG1242 with manyG4183 [2period of sevensG1439.1 1one];G1520 andG2532 inG1722 theG3588 halfG2255 of theG3588 period of sevenG1439.1 shall be lifted awayG142 sacrificeG2378 andG2532 libation offering,G4700.2 andG2532 uponG1909 theG3588 templeG2413 an abominationG946 of theG3588 desolationsG2050 will be;G1510.8.3 andG2532 untilG2193 theG3588 completionG4930 of time,G2540 completionG4930 shall be givenG1325 untoG1909 theG3588 desolation.G2050*

Some versions remove the second pronoun altogether. here is the Berean Study Bible:
And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”

He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator." (CSB)

So we always have to be careful about pronouns in the Bible and try not to make our theology be based upon them too strongly.

[Cyberseeker]

Most people don't realise that most bibles have TWO characters , HE who confirms the promise and then ONE/DESOLATOR (someone else) who sets up the abomination:

27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate NASB

27 And he will enter into a binding and irrevocable covenant with the many for one week (seven years), but in the middle of the week he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate AMPLIFIED

27 That leader will make firm an agreement with many people for seven years. He will stop the offerings and sacrifices after three and one-half years. A destroyer will do blasphemous things until the ordered end comes to the destroyed city NCV

27 And he shall confirm brit (covenant) with rabbim for one heptad; and in the midst of the heptad he shall cause the zevach and the minchah to cease, and on the kenaf (wing) of the abominations is one making desolate OJB

Knowing the precedent of the KJV of just one character, why then do MOST other translations then contradict this and describe two characters? Obviously something in the original text points to two characters. On the balance of logic it appears there is an EARLIER character who confirms a promise, and then a LATER character who sets up an abomination.

Your examples (except perhaps the NCV) do not show the desolator setting up an abomination. He is better understood as desolating the temple following abominations. How are you understanding the term, 'wing' ? Are you assuming that an abomination will be committed in a 'wing' of a building?

[randyk]

Most people don't realise that most bibles have TWO characters , HE who confirms the promise and then ONE/DESOLATOR (someone else) who sets up the abomination:

27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate NASB

27 And he will enter into a binding and irrevocable covenant with the many for one week (seven years), but in the middle of the week he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate AMPLIFIED

27 That leader will make firm an agreement with many people for seven years. He will stop the offerings and sacrifices after three and one-half years. A destroyer will do blasphemous things until the ordered end comes to the destroyed city NCV

27 And he shall confirm brit (covenant) with rabbim for one heptad; and in the midst of the heptad he shall cause the zevach and the minchah to cease, and on the kenaf (wing) of the abominations is one making desolate OJB

Knowing the precedent of the KJV of just one character, why then do MOST other translations then contradict this and describe two characters? Obviously something in the original text points to two characters. On the balance of logic it appears there is an EARLIER character who confirms a promise, and then a LATER character who sets up an abomination.

This is difficult, and I try to "reverse engineer" it, beginning with NT assumptions. I begin with my already-stated view that the Abomination is the Roman Army come to commit Desolation against the temple "wing." If we begin with the idea that Luke's version of the scene is a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem, to desolate it, and then compare that with the AoD of Matthew and Mark, we can then assume the AoD is the encirclement of Jerusalem by the Roman Army.

This view appears to be confirmed by Daniel himself who in ch. 9 indicates that the "people of the one to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." This is the exact situation Jesus was in when he was predicting what Luke referred to as "the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies."

Once we've established the context for the AoD, it is easier to try to reconcile this history with the actual language used. Since I'm not good with the Hebrew language, I've been taking my discussion to my brother, who is not an expert, but pretty capable of looking at it grammatically. We're still going through this process.

At present my view is that Jesus is the Anointed One who is to come to accomplish 6 things in the context of the Jewish People and the city of Jerusalem.

24 Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

What happens to the city of Jerusalem is that people of the ruler to come will *desolate* it. What happens to Messiah is he will be "cut off."

26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

Finally, he, referring back to Messiah, will "confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ " This means that the 70 Weeks period is concluded with Messiah confirming the 6 listed items, fulfilling God's covenant with Israel.

And this is explained as his putting "an end to sacrifice and offering." Jesus, by making himself the final sacrifice for sin, terminated animal sacrifice and offerings under the Law. He made the final and acceptable offering to God, through which we also make an acceptable offering to God.

But then it is explained how this Messianic offering relates to the desolation of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. "And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.”

"He" refers back to the "one who is to come" and whose "people," an army, come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. This seems logical to me, if we begin with my assumptions.

What this means is that as Messiah offers himself to God to be "cut off," or killed, the temple will experience an attack from the "people of the one to come." The "abomination" here appears to be the army itself, until the army itself is destroyed. That happened after Cestius Gallus withdrew from Jerusalem and was defeated. I don't know if this is the proper interpretation, but it seems a possible one.

[DurbanDude]

Your examples (except perhaps the NCV) do not show the desolator setting up an abomination. He is better understood as desolating the temple following abominations. How are you understanding the term, 'wing' ? Are you assuming that an abomination will be committed in a 'wing' of a building?

Thanks for pointing that out. There are many threads on Daniel 9:27; my emphasis on this thread is that most translations refer to two characters in that one verse, not one. What the second character actually does isn't central to this thread (unless you are one of the few that acknowledges two characters and would like to explain who they each are and what they do)

I would say that in 3 of those translations in the opening post and also in many others the translators are deliberately inserting a second character by first using "he", then using "one".

[DurbanDude]

This is difficult, and I try to "reverse engineer" it, beginning with NT assumptions. I begin with my already-stated view that the Abomination is the Roman Army come to commit Desolation against the temple "wing." If we begin with the idea that Luke's version of the scene is a Roman Army encircling Jerusalem, to desolate it, and then compare that with the AoD of Matthew and Mark, we can then assume the AoD is the encirclement of Jerusalem by the Roman Army.

This view appears to be confirmed by Daniel himself who in ch. 9 indicates that the "people of the one to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary." This is the exact situation Jesus was in when he was predicting what Luke referred to as "the encirclement of Jerusalem by armies."

Once we've established the context for the AoD, it is easier to try to reconcile this history with the actual language used. Since I'm not good with the Hebrew language, I've been taking my discussion to my brother, who is not an expert, but pretty capable of looking at it grammatically. We're still going through this process.

At present my view is that Jesus is the Anointed One who is to come to accomplish 6 things in the context of the Jewish People and the city of Jerusalem.

24 Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.

What happens to the city of Jerusalem is that people of the ruler to come will *desolate* it. What happens to Messiah is he will be "cut off."

26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.

Finally, he, referring back to Messiah, will "confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ " This means that the 70 Weeks period is concluded with Messiah confirming the 6 listed items, fulfilling God's covenant with Israel.

And this is explained as his putting "an end to sacrifice and offering." Jesus, by making himself the final sacrifice for sin, terminated animal sacrifice and offerings under the Law. He made the final and acceptable offering to God, through which we also make an acceptable offering to God.

But then it is explained how this Messianic offering relates to the desolation of Jerusalem and the sanctuary. "And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on it.”

"He" refers back to the "one who is to come" and whose "people," an army, come to destroy Jerusalem and the temple. This seems logical to me, if we begin with my assumptions.

What this means is that as Messiah offers himself to God to be "cut off," or killed, the temple will experience an attack from the "people of the one to come." The "abomination" here appears to be the army itself, until the army itself is destroyed. That happened after Cestius Gallus withdrew from Jerusalem and was defeated. I don't know if this is the proper interpretation, but it seems a possible one.

Okay so you acknowledge the likelihood of two characters (others may categorically deny it).

Furthermore you see how it can fit into your own (debatable lol) paradigm.

For clarity sake who would your two characters be? Is Jesus the "he" who confirms the covenant (I would agree with this), then who is the "one" who related to abomination/desolation in 66AD? And furthermore how do you justify your gap in the seventy 7s?

[Cyberseeker]

Thanks for pointing that out. There are many threads on Daniel 9:27; my emphasis on this thread is that most translations refer to two characters in that one verse, not one. What the second character actually does isn't central to this thread (unless you are one of the few that acknowledges two characters and would like to explain who they each are and what they do)

I would say that in 3 of those translations in the opening post and also in many others the translators are deliberately inserting a second character by first using "he", then using "one".

I agree that there are 2 characters. However, some modern translations deliberately twist it to say one character. Here is the New Living. (good elsewhere but awful on this verse)

"The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him."

[randyk]

Okay so you acknowledge the likelihood of two characters (others may categorically deny it).

Furthermore you see how it can fit into your own (debatable lol) paradigm.

For clarity sake who would your two characters be? Is Jesus the "he" who confirms the covenant (I would agree with this), then who is the "one" who related to abomination/desolation in 66AD? And furthermore how do you justify your gap in the seventy 7s?

I don't know why you laugh at a very reasonable position--just because you disagree with it? Most of the Church Fathers believed that the prophecy of the 70 Week was fulfilled in the time of Jesus and in the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem.

As I indicated in my post, the one who makes a covenant for the final Weeks is Jesus himself. He is the one who completes the 70 Weeks by doing the 6 important things in the prophecy on behalf of 1) the Jewish People, and 2) the city of Jerusalem.

The other "he" in vs. 27, who sets up the abomination that causes desolation, is Cestius Gallus, whose Army encircled Jerusalem and began a siege against the city. They were on the perimeter of the concentric circle enclosing both the city and the sanctuary, and were thus "in the holy place," as Jesus indicated. Jesus was, after all, basing his Discourse on this particular verse!

[Aristarkos]

Most people don't realise that most bibles have TWO characters , HE who confirms the promise and then ONE/DESOLATOR (someone else) who sets up the abomination:

27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate NASB

27 And he will enter into a binding and irrevocable covenant with the many for one week (seven years), but in the middle of the week he will stop the sacrifice and grain offering [for the remaining three and one-half years]; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate AMPLIFIED

27 That leader will make firm an agreement with many people for seven years. He will stop the offerings and sacrifices after three and one-half years. A destroyer will do blasphemous things until the ordered end comes to the destroyed city NCV

27 And he shall confirm brit (covenant) with rabbim for one heptad; and in the midst of the heptad he shall cause the zevach and the minchah to cease, and on the kenaf (wing) of the abominations is one making desolate OJB

Knowing the precedent of the KJV of just one character, why then do MOST other translations then contradict this and describe two characters? Obviously something in the original text points to two characters. On the balance of logic it appears there is an EARLIER character who confirms a promise, and then a LATER character who sets up an abomination.

It is all about the translation (again), according to the Companion Bible it should be translated like this

« And he hath strengthened a covenant with the many one week, and in the middle of the week he causeth sacrifice and oblation to cease, and in its stead the abomination that maketh desolate unto a full end, and that which is determined shall come pouring upon the causer of desolation ».

Aristarkos

[DurbanDude]

Some versions remove the second pronoun altogether. here is the Berean Study Bible:
And he will confirm a covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of the temple will come the abomination that causes desolation, until the decreed destruction is poured out upon him.”

He will make a firm covenant with many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and offering. And the abomination of desolation will be on a wing of the temple until the decreed destruction is poured out on the desolator." (CSB)

So we always have to be careful about pronouns in the Bible and try not to make our theology be based upon them too strongly.

I agree we need to be careful on pronouns. Nevertheless those translators after considering everything including the original KJV translation still chose to give the impression of two characters. If they had weak reasons for doing that, I wonder why they didn't remove the second pronoun like the CSB? Here are some more translations that also have two characters:

ASV he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate

AMPC he shall cause the sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing or pinnacle of abominations [shall come] one who makes desolate

ESV he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate

MEV he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate

NET he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys

RSV he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate

TLV he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of abominations will come one who destroys

WEB he shall cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; and on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate

And that list is aside from those in the opening post, and aside from those who refer to a later "desolator will come", also indicating two characters. This really puts doubt into the view that the antichrist will end sacrifices, then also be involved with an abomination.

[DurbanDude]

It is all about the translation (again), according to the Companion Bible it should be translated like this

« And he hath strengthened a covenant with the many one week, and in the middle of the week he causeth sacrifice and oblation to cease, and in its stead the abomination that maketh desolate unto a full end, and that which is determined shall come pouring upon the causer of desolation ».

Aristarkos

Sure as FHG pointed out, personal pronouns are not always used in the second half of v27. Nevertheless my point is that most translators actually do split the identity of the two characters in v27. Pointing out exceptions does not change that fact.

[DurbanDude]

I agree that there are 2 characters. However, some modern translations deliberately twist it to say one character. Here is the New Living. (good elsewhere but awful on this verse)

"The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him."

I agree that there are two characters. I'm sure you agree that the one who confirms the covenant is Jesus, but remind me who you think the second character is?

Yes some translations show one character, the reason for the popularity of the "one character" view is that two popular bibles being the KJV and the NIV use one character and not two. The NIV does show the alternative "two character view" in the footnote:
OR: Daniel 9:27 he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the abominable temple

[Cyberseeker]

Sure, Jesus was the Anointed One who finished the sacrifice. The second character was Titus the Roman emperor’s son. Notice, the destruction of Jerusalem is attributed to “the people of the prince,” not to the prince himself. Such a distinction would be superfluous, if it were not for the fact that Titus had instructed his troops to preserve the temple, but they disobeyed orders and torched it anyway. The people of the prince did it!