Daniel 9:27 – The Abomination of Desolation

This is the third post in a series on Daniel 9. (The first two posts can be found here and here.) In this post I will focus on the final verse, Daniel 9:27, which for me, is the most challenging part of the chapter.

Here’s how the first half of verse 27 reads in four different versions.

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. (NIV)

And one week shall establish the covenant with many: and in the midst of the week my sacrifice and drink-offering shall be taken away (Brenton, LXX)

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. (ESV)

And he will strengthen a covenant for the princes for one week, and half the week he will abolish sacrifice and meal-offering (Chabad.org)

Who is the he who will confirm a covenant and put an end to sacrifice? Is he the “ruler who will come” in verse 26?

After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. (v. 26)

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. (v. 27a)

The NIV encourages us to link “the ruler who will come” (v. 26) with the one who will make a covenant for one week and put an end to sacrifice (v. 27). If this is correct, did this ruler come in the first century when the temple was destroyed? Or does this refer to a ruler who will come after the first century? Some even think Gabriel is referring to the antichrist who is still yet to come and who will destroy a future third temple.

First of all, the events of Gabriel’s prophecy occur in the same general time period—seventy sevens or seventy weeks (v. 24), and in particular, near the end of this timeframe. (While Gabriel literally says “seventy sevens,” this post explains why most scholars think it means seventy weeks of years or 490 years.) Since we have no indication of gaps or overlap between the weeks, and we have a total of 490 years, I don’t think we can insert a 2,000 year gap between week 69 and week 70 in order to make room for a future third temple. If we understand the seventy weeks as 490 years, we are on the safest ground looking for the fulfillment of Gabriel’s message around the first century.

But should we even identify “the ruler who will come” (v. 26) as the one who will confirm a covenant and put an end to sacrifice (v. 27)? It’s tempting to do so because Gabriel has just mentioned this figure, but I think the reasons to see them as separate individuals are stronger.

1. The primary subject in the sentence is the people not the ruler—“the people of the ruler who will come” so verse 26 says nothing directly about the ruler. The focus is on the people not the ruler. This means the primary antecedent to the “he” in verse 27 is still the Anointed One in verse 26.
2. The previous references to sevens or weeks are connected with the holy city or the Anointed One so we would expect the seven of verse 27 to be linked to one of the two. (See vv. 25-26 below.)
3. The one who makes a covenant around the time of the seventieth seven is Jesus (Lk 22:20).
4. To view the covenant maker as “the ruler who will come” in verse 26 breaks the Jerusalem-Anointed One pattern of the passage. (Doukhan’s article brought patterns to my attention.)

Here’s the pattern color coded. I will leave the end of verse 27 for later.

²⁵ “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem

until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’

It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

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

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

²⁷ He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. (NIV)

In sum,

• • Jerusalem (v. 25)
  • Anointed One (v. 25)
  • Jerusalem (v. 25)
  • Anointed One (v. 26)
  • Jerusalem (v. 26)
  • Anointed One – expected (v. 27)

These arguments support the conclusion that the “he” in the first half of verse 27 is not the same as the ruler who will come in verse 26. The “he” who will confirm a covenant is the Anointed One.

But this is still not a problem free conclusion. Why not? The idea of ending sacrifice is linked with the “abomination that causes desolation” in Daniel 11 and 12.

• His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation. (11:31)

• From the time that the daily sacrifice is abolished and the abomination that causes desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days. (12:11)

If Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 are all referring to the same person and event and if that person is the Anointed One (9:27), the Anointed One will abolish sacrifice then set up an abomination that causes desolation in the temple. How can the Messiah be connected with this abomination?

In Hebrew there are a couple clues that Daniel 9:27 is not talking about the same person/event as Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. First, different verbs are used. The Hebrew verb for “put an end” in Daniel 9:27 is sabat, which means “cause to cease.” This is the same Hebrew word used in the following verses:

By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done. (Gen 2:2-3)

Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest. (Exod 34:21)

In Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, the Hebrew verb for “abolish” is sur, which means “to turn aside, to depart.” It is used in the following verses:

The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet (Gen 49:10)

And Moses said, “I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned.” (Exod 3:3 ESV)

Be careful, or you will be enticed to turn away and worship other gods and bow down to them. (Dt 11:16)

Putting an end to sacrifice and offering is not the same as turning aside or departing from the daily sacrifice. Second, the references to sacrifice are not the same. Compare the universal reference to sacrifice in 9:27: “he will put an end to sacrifice and offering” with the specific sacrifice mentioned in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11: “abolish the daily sacrifice . . . the daily sacrifice is abolished.”

On the surface, these three verses seem to be pointing to the same thing, but a closer look reveals that Daniel 9:27 is talking about something different than Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. The only one who puts an end to the entire sacrificial system is the figure in Daniel 9:27. Someone else turns aside from the daily sacrifice in Daniel 11:31 and 12:11. For Christians, the one who put an end to sacrifice is Jesus. “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself” (Heb 7:27). Hence, the he of verse 27a is the Anointed One. Finishing the color coding results in the following:

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

The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

²⁷ He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. (NIV)

Verse 27b

Verse 27 continues:

And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. (NIV)

Compare this with three other versions:

and on the temple shall be the abomination of desolations; and at the end of time an end shall be put to the desolation. (Brenton, LXX)

And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. (ESV)

and on high, among abominations, will be the dumb one, and until destruction and extermination befall the dumb one. (Chabad.org)

As we have seen in previous posts, the NIV follows the Septuagint more closely in this passage so only those two versions above use the term “temple.” But the NIV indicates in a footnote that the Hebrew word is “wing,” which Chabad.org renders as “on high.” I don’t know how to decide between “temple” and “wing” in verse 27, but both the temple and the  abomination are mentioned in Daniel 11:31.

The “he” of 9:27

Is verse 27 only referring to one person? If you only read the NIV, it’s difficult to argue that the “he” who will confirm a covenant is different from the “he” who will set up an abomination.

He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.” (NIV)

However, the Hebrew is more literally rendered:

He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. But in the middle of that week he will bring sacrifices and offerings to a halt. On the wing of abominations will come one who destroys, until the decreed end is poured out on the one who destroys. (NET)

And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator. (ESV)

It’s much easier to see two distinct figures in these versions. The NIV is deficient in causing readers to only see one figure in verse 27.

1 Maccabees

What is the “abomination that causes desolation?”

Daniel 11 and 12 make it sound like some kind of idol—an object set up in the temple.

The next reference to this abomination can be found in 1 Maccabees, which was written around the second century BC. This book records the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes who defiled the temple in 167 B.C.

⁴¹ Then the king [Antiochus IV Epiphanes] wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, ⁴² and that all should give up their particular customs. ⁴³ All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. ⁴⁴ And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, ⁴⁵ to forbid burnt-offerings and sacrifices and drink-offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, ⁴⁶ to defile the sanctuary and the priests, ⁴⁷ to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, ⁴⁸ and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, ⁴⁹ so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. ⁵⁰ He added, ‘And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.’

⁵¹ In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. ⁵² Many of the people, everyone who forsook the law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; ⁵³ they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.

⁵⁴ Now on the fifteenth day of Chislev, in the one hundred and forty-fifth year, they erected a desolating sacrilege on the altar of burnt-offering. They also built altars in the surrounding towns of Judah, ⁵⁵ and offered incense at the doors of the houses and in the streets. ⁵⁶ The books of the law that they found they tore to pieces and burned with fire. ⁵⁷ Anyone found possessing the book of the covenant, or anyone who adhered to the law, was condemned to death by decree of the king. ⁵⁸ They kept using violence against Israel, against those who were found month after month in the towns. ⁵⁹ On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt-offering. ⁶⁰ In accordance with the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised, ⁶¹ and their families and those who circumcised them; and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks. (1:41-61 NRSVA)

“Desolating sacrilege” in verse 54 can also be translated as the “abomination of desolation.” According to 1 Maccabees, this abomination was something that was offered on the altar outside the temple.

Josephus – The Jewish Antiquities

Writing in AD 94, Josephus, the Jewish historian describes these events this way:

Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery . . . he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law. . . . And when the king had built an idol altar upon God’s altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. (Antiquities, 12.5.248)

Is the desolating sacrilege in 1 Maccabees an offering of swine on the altar? It’s difficult to say for certain, but when we incorporate Josephus’s insights it sounds like it.

As a side note: The traditional date of Daniel places it in the 5th/6th century BC, which means Daniel was divinely inspired to see future events. But many modern scholars don’t accept a miraculous view of the book of Daniel. Instead, they view it as a 2nd century BC book that merely records history in a creative way.

The Gospels

The abomination in 167 BC cannot be the only fulfillment of Daniel 9 because about two centuries later Jesus mentions it as a future event to his disciples.

So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Matt 24:15-16)

When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Mk 13:14)

According to Jesus, this abomination serves as a sign to his followers in Judea to flee to the mountains.

In his book, Jesus the Temple, and the Coming Son of Man, Robert Stein lists the following eight options for the abomination of desolation in Jesus’s teaching.

1. The attempt by Caligula in AD 39-40 to erect a statue of himself in the temple in Jerusalem. It was not carried out.
2. The attempt by Pontius Pilate to have Roman soldiers display their military standards which Jews considered blasphemous.
3. The atrocities committed by the Zealots under the leadership of John of Gischala and Eleazar in A.D. 67-68.
4. The role of Titus in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70.
5. The Roman soldiers setting up their standards in the temple and sacrificing to them as they proclaimed Titus ’emperor.’
6. The events leading up to the siege of Jerusalem by the Roman army in AD 70.
7. The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Roman army.
8. A future event involving and preceding Christ’s second coming. (89-90)

Stein says options 1 and 2 were too early to serve as a sign to flee Jerusalem because Jerusalem wasn’t destroyed until AD 70. And options 4, 5 and 7 were too late to serve as a sign to flee. Intriguingly, he says option 6 doesn’t work because “it refers to a ‘thing,’ whereas the abomination of desolation refers to a person, as the masculine participle ‘standing’ indicates” (92). Lastly, option 8 doesn’t work because the location is limited to Judea—”let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” but an end times tribulation will be widespread. That leaves option 3: The atrocities committed by the Zealots under the leadership of John of Gischala and Eleazar in A.D. 67-68.

Josephus – The Jewish War

Both John of Gischala and Eleazar were leaders in the Jewish revolt against Rome in the late 60s AD. They supported the overthrow of the priesthood and installed new priests. Here’s what Josephus says of these events.

they ordained certain unknown and ignoble persons for that office, that they might have their assistance in their wicked undertakings; for such as obtained this highest of all honors, without any desert, were forced to comply with those that bestowed it on them. . . they transferred their contumelious behavior to God himself, and came into the sanctuary with polluted feet. (Jewish War, 4.147)

Hereupon they sent for one of the pontifical tribes, which is called Eniachim, and cast lots which of it should be the high priest. By fortune the lot so fell as to demonstrate their iniquity after the plainest manner, for it fell upon one whose name was Phannias, the son of Samuel, of the village Aphtha. He was a man not only unworthy of the high priesthood, but that did not well know what the high priesthood was, such a mere rustic was he ! yet did they hail this man, without his own consent, out of the country, as if they were acting a play upon the stage, and adorned him with a counterfeit thee; they also put upon him the sacred garments, and upon every occasion instructed him what he was to do. This horrid piece of wickedness was sport and pastime with them, but occasioned the other priests, who at a distance saw their law made a jest of, to shed tears, and sorely lament the dissolution of such a sacred dignity. (Jewish War, 4.155)

Identifying the Abomination in Jesus’s Teaching

So which is it?

Whatever we decide, we cannot discount the armies surrounding Jerusalem because that concept functions in the same way as the abomination—a sign to flee Jerusalem. Stein makes a strong argument that the installation of the fraudulent high priest named Phannias in the temple is the “abomination of desolation” mentioned by Jesus. How so?

• It fits the time period so it could serve as a warning to flee from Jerusalem.
• It was a male “standing” in the temple.
• It was an abomination because Phannias was unqualified and the process made a mockery of the law.
• It was followed by the destruction of the temple and Phannias’s death.

Phannias was installed as the 83rd and final high priest in AD 67. He is believed to have died during the Roman conquest of Jerusalem. Verse 27 ends, “And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator” (ESV).

Questions

How does all of this connect with the one seven or one week of Daniel 9:27? The final seven must begin about three years before Jesus died so approximately when he was baptized. In the middle he confirmed the new covenant and put an end to sacrifice by his death. The second half of this final week is not mentioned in Daniel 9, but it must continue for about the first three years of the gospel spreading in Jerusalem and throughout the Mediterranean world.

How does the destruction of the temple in AD 70 fit into the seventy sevens or 490 years of Daniel 9:24? It doesn’t. That’s a hard pill for me to swallow. I would like to fit everything into the seventy sevens, but if these are literal years, and my interpretation is correct, I have to make an exception for the destruction of the temple, which occurred less than 40 years after the seventieth week.

In defense of this exception, Gabriel doesn’t link the destruction of the temple with a specific week. He merely says, “The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed” (v. 26). Presumably, this occurs after the sixty-two sevens because he has just said, “After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing” but we don’t know exactly how long afterward. Then how do we know the anointed one was put to death in the seventieth week and not afterwards? Because he is the one who makes a covenant for one week and puts an end to sacrifice in the middle of that week. Since there is only one week remaining at that point, and we know there are seventy weeks total, “the one week” of verse 27 must be the seventieth week. But, again, the destruction of the temple is not directly linked with any of the weeks. 

In addition, notice what will happen in the seventy sevens: “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 [no word in Hebrew]” (v. 24). It doesn’t say the temple will be destroyed in this timeframe. Christians can affirm all the events of Daniel 9:24 occurred within 490 years from Artarxerxes’ decree in 458 BC.

Conclusion

Reflecting back on these three posts on Daniel 9, what’s the main point?

In response to Daniel’s prayer for mercy on the people of Israel and the holy city, God gives Daniel a timeframe—”seventy sevens” and promises that the city will be rebuilt and an Anointed One will come. This Anointed One is also called the ruler. But then God reveals that the Anointed One will be killed and the city will be destroyed. In addition, prior to his death, the Anointed One will make a covenant. And prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, an abomination that causes desolation will occur. All of this—the good and the bad—will accomplish God’s plan: “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” (v. 24). And that’s the point: God has a plan and that plan includes a time period. And God’s plan ensures that his good purposes will prevail.

Since I view the seventy sevens as a literal 490-year period beginning with Artaxerxes’ decree in 458 BC, I believe the events of Daniel 9:24-27 were fulfilled in the first century. And that fits with the widespread messianic expectations in Israel at the time. In other words, others understood Daniel in a similar way. It also corresponds with what we know occurred: Christ died about 500 years later followed by the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Daniel 9:24-27 is a difficult passage. I don’t claim that my interpretation is free from errors. But I hope I’ve shown that we must pay close attention to the literary and historical context in our interpretative process.

I know I have not covered everything in Daniel 9. If you have questions, feel free to leave them below.

Les Bridgeman

After graduating from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, I served as a Bible and theology teacher in Asia and the U.S. My new book explores the amazing doctrine of the Trinity.