Grammar's rules are objective. Interpretation is subjective. Grammar's rules should be applied first, to maximize the probability of correct interpretation.
Grammar matters because it gives structure to a sentence and helps limit the range of possible meanings. Interpretation involves more judgment, so grammar should be considered first. However, when studying the Bible, we must remember that the Old Testament was not written in English. It was written mainly in Hebrew, and Hebrew does not always follow the same grammatical patterns as English.
That matters because an English translation may arrange a sentence in a way that sounds natural to us, even though the Hebrew sentence is structured differently. Word order may change. Pronouns may be added for clarity. A subject may be contained within a Hebrew verb rather than written separately. The nearest noun is not always the correct antecedent.
For that reason, we should be cautious about claiming that an English grammatical rule settles the meaning of a Hebrew passage.
Daniel 9 gives us a good example.
Daniel 9:25 speaks of “Messiah the Prince.” Then verse 26 says:
“After the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off… and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
Some argue that the phrase “the prince who is to come” must refer to the Messiah because “Messiah the Prince” was mentioned in the previous verse. But that conclusion does not follow automatically. Daniel does not simply repeat the title “Messiah the Prince.” He introduces a different expression:
“The people of the prince who is to come.”
The two princes are also connected with very different actions. The Messiah is the One who is cut off. The other prince is identified through his people, who destroy the city and the sanctuary. The word
prince is a title, not a personal name. Two different rulers can both be called princes without being the same person.
The language therefore distinguishes between:
- Messiah the Prince, who comes and is cut off;
- and the prince who is to come, whose people later destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary.
This shows why the nearest word or title cannot always determine identity. The same issue appears in Daniel 9:27:
“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
In English, the word “he” may appear to refer naturally to the nearest previously mentioned man—the prince whose people destroy Jerusalem. But the Hebrew text does not contain a separate pronoun in exactly the same way English does. The masculine subject is built into the verb. English translators supply the word
he so that the sentence reads naturally. The verb tells us that the subject is a single male, but it does not name him. His identity must be determined from the whole prophecy. When the larger passage is considered, the subject is best understood as the Messiah.
Daniel 9:24 describes the work that must be accomplished: bringing an end to sin, making reconciliation, bringing in everlasting righteousness, and anointing the Most Holy. Verse 25 introduces the Messiah. Verse 26 tells us that He will be cut off. Verse 27 then explains what He accomplishes during the final prophetic week:
“He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week.”
Confirming the covenant naturally belongs to the work of the Messiah. The destructive prince is never said to establish or strengthen God’s covenant. He is mentioned only in connection with the people who destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary. The “he” of Daniel 9:27 therefore returns to the main subject of the prophecy—the Messiah.
The phrase “one week” also has a clear place within the prophecy. Daniel 9:24 begins by declaring that seventy weeks are appointed. The prophecy then identifies seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, giving a total of sixty-nine. The “one week” of verse 27 is therefore the remaining seventieth week. It is not naturally an unrelated seven-year period placed thousands of years later. It is the final week of the seventy-week prophecy.
The Messiah confirms the covenant during this final week. In the middle of that week, He is cut off. Through His death, He causes sacrifice and offering to lose their covenant purpose because the true sacrifice has now been offered. The physical Temple sacrifices may have continued for a time, but before God the sacrificial system had reached its fulfillment in Christ.
Daniel 9 also gives another example of why the nearest noun does not always settle the meaning.
Verse 26 says:
“The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood.”
The nearest noun before the phrase “its end” is “sanctuary.” Yet the statement is not necessarily referring only to the sanctuary. It refers more broadly to the destruction, the city, the invading power, or the end connected with the coming ruler. The meaning must be drawn from the whole sentence and its context, not simply from the closest noun. Translation creates another important difficulty. The same English word may be used to translate different Hebrew words.
An English reader may see the same word repeated and assume that the same Hebrew word is being used each time. That is not always true. Daniel 8 provides a clear example. In many English translations, the word “vision” appears nine times in the chapter. However, Daniel uses two different Hebrew words. Six of those occurrences use the word chazon. Three use the word mareh. The distinction is hidden when both words are translated simply as
vision.
The chazon is the broader prophetic vision. It describes the long movement of events involving kingdoms, powers, and the course of history reaching toward the end. The mareh is more focused and is connected with the vision of the 2,300 evenings and mornings, that occur within the final week of the prophecy.
This distinction can be seen especially clearly in Daniel 8:26, where both Hebrew words appear in the same verse. In English, the word
vision appears twice, making it seem as though Daniel is simply repeating himself. In Hebrew, however, he uses two different words. The mareh of the evenings and mornings is identified
within the broader chazon vision. This shows how an English translation can sometimes hide an important distinction in the original language.
None of this means that English translations are unreliable. It means they must be used carefully. Every translation involves choices, and some details in the original language cannot be fully represented by one English word. A careful method of interpretation should therefore follow this order:
First, examine the grammar and vocabulary of the original language.
Second, study the immediate and larger context.
Third, compare how the writer uses the same words and ideas elsewhere.
Finally, test the interpretation against the broader message of Scripture.
Grammar should come before interpretation, but it must be the grammar of the original language. English grammar can help us understand an English translation, but it cannot by itself determine the meaning of a Hebrew passage. Daniel 9 illustrates this clearly. The passage distinguishes Messiah the Prince from the later prince whose people destroy Jerusalem. It then returns to the Messiah as the One who confirms the covenant during the final week of the seventy-weeks prophecy.
Daniel 8 makes the same point in a different way. One English word— “vision”—is used to translate two different Hebrew words: the broader chazon and the more focused mareh associated with the 2,300 evenings and mornings. These examples show why interpretation must begin with the original language rather than relying solely upon the appearance of an English translation. Daniel is clearly the most difficult book in the Bible to understand and interpret and the above issues regarding English translations and grammatical rules further complicates it’s understanding.
