The Natural and Gnomic Will

The following is a cleaned up transcript from the above video (starting at 25:51)…

Think of it this way: one way of understanding Jesus as the Incarnate Son of God, as Maximus says, is that in most human beings, there is the natural will. In all rational creatures, there’s the natural will, which spontaneously desires only God and chooses only God because that’s its true end. To the degree that we’re separate from God, we have a deliberative or gnomic will, the psychological will that can make errors, go in the wrong direction, and do sinful things. Jesus, according to Maximus, doesn’t have a gnomic will, not because He lacks the capacity for deliberation, but because He’s so perfectly, fully, truly one with the Father and is Himself the Son that there’s no division between who He is essentially and who He is psychologically and empirically. There’s no space of separation. Human beings are called to become like that, utterly transparent before Christ to the presence of Christ in them in the Holy Spirit. As Paul says in First Corinthians 15, God becomes all in all, not just all over all, but all in all.

Here is an expansion on what David Bentley Hart said…

1. The Natural Will in Rational Creatures

Hart begins by referencing Maximus’s concept of the natural will (Greek: thelema physikon). According to Maximus, the natural will is an inherent faculty in all rational creatures—humans, angels, and other spiritual beings—that spontaneously orients them toward their ultimate end: God. This will is not deliberative or subject to choice in the way we typically understand decision-making; it is an intrinsic, ontological drive toward the good, the true, and the beautiful, which Maximus (and Hart) identifies as God Himself. The natural will is rooted in the idea that rational creatures are created in the image of God (imago Dei), and their deepest desire, by nature, is to be united with their divine source.

Expansion: The natural will reflects Maximus’s broader metaphysical framework, where creation is inherently oriented toward God as its telos (purpose or end). This aligns with the Christian patristic tradition, particularly the Eastern emphasis on theosis (deification), where the purpose of human existence is to participate fully in the divine life. Hart emphasizes that this desire for God is not a conscious choice but a fundamental aspect of what it means to be a rational being. It’s why Augustine’s famous phrase, “Our hearts are restless till they rest in you,” resonates here (mentioned earlier in the video at 4:25–4:32). The natural will is the “restless heart” seeking its fulfillment in God.

2. The Gnomic Will and Human Separation

Hart contrasts the natural will with the gnomic will (Greek: thelema gnomikon), which Maximus describes as a deliberative or discursive mode of willing. The gnomic will arises because humans, in their fallen state, are separated from God. This separation introduces a psychological and empirical dimension to human willing, where choices are made through deliberation, often leading to errors or sin. The gnomic will is not inherently evil but is a consequence of human freedom in a state of estrangement from God, where individuals can choose against their natural end (God) due to ignorance, temptation, or misdirection.

Expansion: The concept of the gnomic will is central to Maximus’s Christology and anthropology. In Maximus’s view, the fall fractured human nature, introducing a tension between the natural will (which always desires God) and the gnomic will (which can choose otherwise). This is why humans can act against their own ultimate good, choosing lesser goods or sinful paths. Hart’s point is that the gnomic will is a temporary condition, a product of the “space of separation” between humans and God. This separation is not ontological in the sense of altering human nature’s essence but experiential, resulting from the fall and the limitations of human perception and freedom in this world.

3. Jesus and the Absence of the Gnomic Will

Hart explains that, according to Maximus, Jesus, as the Incarnate Son of God, does not possess a gnomic will. This is not because Jesus lacks the capacity for deliberation—He is fully human and thus capable of human reasoning and choice—but because His human nature is perfectly united with His divine nature. In Jesus, there is no division between who He is essentially (His divine and human natures united in the hypostatic union, as defined by Chalcedonian Christology) and who He is psychologically and empirically (His lived experience as a human being). Jesus’s human will is perfectly aligned with the divine will, so there is no need for a deliberative, gnomic process that could lead to error or sin.

Expansion: Maximus developed this idea in response to the Monothelite controversy (7th century), which debated whether Jesus had one will (divine) or two (divine and human). Maximus argued for dyothelitism—that Jesus has both a divine will and a human will, but the human will operates without the gnomic mode because it is perfectly attuned to the divine. This is critical for Maximus’s soteriology: Jesus’s perfect unity of wills demonstrates the possibility of human nature being restored to its intended state, where the natural will fully governs without the interference of a gnomic will prone to error. Hart’s reference to “no division” reflects the Chalcedonian principle of the hypostatic union, where Jesus’s two natures (divine and human) are united without confusion, change, division, or separation. In Jesus, the human will is “transparent” to the divine, embodying the goal of human deification.

4. Human Destiny: Becoming Transparent to Christ

Hart extends this Christological insight to human destiny, stating that humans are called to become like Jesus—utterly transparent to the presence of Christ within them through the Holy Spirit. This transparency means aligning the human will with the natural will’s orientation toward God, eliminating the gnomic will’s tendency to err. In this state, humans become fully united with God, participating in the divine life (theosis), where their individuality is not erased but fulfilled.

Expansion: This idea of “transparency” draws on Maximus’s theology of deification, where the human person, through grace and the work of the Holy Spirit, becomes a perfect reflection of the divine Logos (Christ). The term “transparent” suggests a state where the human self is no longer opaque or obstructive to God’s presence but allows the divine light to shine through fully. This aligns with the Eastern Christian emphasis on theosis as the fulfillment of human nature, not its annihilation. Hart’s earlier discussion in the video (around 22:24–25:00) about becoming “uncreated” clarifies that this does not mean annihilation but becoming fully united with the uncreated God, sharing in His nature while retaining personal identity. The analogy of a prism’s facets (27:33–28:24) illustrates this: each facet (individual person) remains distinct, but the light (God) shines through all, uniting them in one divine reality.

5. First Corinthians 15: God Becomes All in All

Hart concludes this section by referencing Paul’s statement in First Corinthians 15:28, where God becomes “all in all” (panta en pasin). This is the culmination of the apokatastasis (universal restoration), where all creation is reconciled to God, not merely ruled over (“all over all”) but fully indwelt by God. This underscores Hart’s broader argument in the video (e.g., 21:15–21:28, 27:26–27:33) that Christian eschatology points to universal salvation, where all rational beings are deified, becoming fully united with God’s presence.

Expansion: In First Corinthians 15, Paul describes the resurrection and the ultimate subjection of all things to Christ, who then subjects Himself to the Father, so that God may be “all in all.” For Maximus and Hart, this is not a coercive domination but a transformative union where every rational creature’s natural will is fully realized, free from the distortions of the gnomic will. This ties into Hart’s rejection of the Thomistic “two-tier” view (2:50–9:01), which posits a natural end for humans separate from the supernatural. Instead, Hart and Maximus see human nature as inherently oriented toward deification, with no ultimate separation between nature and grace. The phrase “all in all” suggests a cosmic restoration where every aspect of creation—mineral, vegetable, animal, and human (18:48–18:56)—is transfigured, participating in God’s eternal life. This is why Hart emphasizes universal salvation in That All Shall Be Saved (mentioned at 21:15–21:21), arguing it is the only logical outcome of Christian eschatology.

6. Context in the Video

This passage (around 25:57–27:33) is part of Hart’s broader discussion of deification and the rejection of a nature-supernature dichotomy. Earlier, he critiques the Thomistic view that separates natural and supernatural ends (2:50–9:01), arguing it creates a “psychotic picture of reality” (20:32) where grace is arbitrary and disconnected from human nature. He contrasts this with the Eastern patristic view, including Maximus, where nature and grace are continuous, and human destiny is to become “uncreated” by participating in God’s life (21:47–25:00). The discussion of Jesus’s will and human transparency to Christ builds on this, showing how Christ’s incarnation models the human calling to deification, where the natural will is fully realized in union with God.

7. Broader Implications

Hart’s exposition has several implications:

Christology and Anthropology: Jesus’s lack of a gnomic will demonstrates the potential for human nature to be restored to its original purpose. Humans are called to overcome the gnomic will’s errors through grace, becoming like Christ in their unity with God.
Universal Salvation: The reference to “all in all” supports Hart’s argument for universal salvation, where all rational creatures achieve this transparency, fulfilling their natural will’s desire for God.
Eastern vs. Western Theology: Hart aligns with Eastern Orthodox theology (Cappadocian Fathers, Maximus, Pseudo-Dionysius) over Western Thomistic distinctions, emphasizing a monistic metaphysics where God is the ground of all being (11:36–13:19).
Practical Spirituality: Becoming “transparent” to Christ suggests a spiritual path of aligning one’s will with God’s through prayer, contemplation, and participation in the life of the Holy Spirit, a theme resonant in Eastern Christian mysticism.

Conclusion

Hart, through Maximus, presents Jesus as the paradigm of human destiny: a being whose human will is perfectly aligned with the divine, free from the deliberative errors of the gnomic will. Humans are called to this same unity, becoming transparent to Christ’s presence within them, culminating in the eschatological vision of First Corinthians 15, where God becomes “all in all.” This reflects Hart’s broader theological project of rejecting artificial distinctions between nature and grace, advocating for a monistic metaphysics where all creation is destined for deification, supporting his case for universal salvation. The passage encapsulates a vision of human fulfillment not as annihilation but as a transformative union with God, retaining personal identity while fully participating in the divine life.

Chart of Events/Figures in Both Josephus and Acts

Event/Figure	Description in Acts	Description in Josephus	Approximate Date
Herod Agrippa I’s Death	Acts 12:20–23 describes Herod being struck down by God and eaten by worms after accepting divine worship.	Antiquities 19.8.2 describes Agrippa’s death at Caesarea, struck by illness during a festival, possibly due to poisoning or divine punishment.	44 AD
Gamaliel the Pharisee	Acts 5:34–39 mentions Gamaliel, a respected Pharisee, advising the Sanhedrin to leave the apostles alone.	Antiquities 20.9.4 and other references describe Gamaliel as a prominent Pharisee and teacher, respected in Jewish society.	~30–50 AD
Theudas the Insurrectionist	Acts 5:36 references Theudas, a false prophet whose rebellion failed.	Antiquities 20.5.1 describes Theudas leading a revolt, later executed by Roman authorities.	~44–46 AD
Judas the Galilean	Acts 5:37 mentions Judas leading a revolt during the census, later killed.	Antiquities 18.1.1 and Jewish War 2.8.1 describe Judas the Galilean’s revolt against the Roman census, founding the Zealot movement.	~6 AD
Famine under Claudius	Acts 11:27–30 describes a great famine in Judea, prompting relief from Antioch Christians.	Antiquities 20.2.5 and 20.5.2 mention a severe famine in Judea under Claudius, alleviated by Queen Helena of Adiabene.	~46–48 AD
Herod Agrippa II and Bernice	Acts 25:13–26:32 describe Paul’s trial before Agrippa II and Bernice in Caesarea.	Antiquities 20.7.2–3 and Jewish War 2.15.1 mention Agrippa II and his sister Bernice, their roles, and interactions with Roman governors.	~59–62 AD
Felix, Roman Governor	Acts 23:24–24:27 describes Paul’s imprisonment and trial under Felix.	Antiquities 20.7.1–2 and Jewish War 2.13.2 describe Felix’s governorship and harsh rule in Judea.	~52–60 AD
Festus, Roman Governor	Acts 24:27–25:12 mentions Festus succeeding Felix and handling Paul’s case.	Antiquities 20.8.9–10 describes Festus’s appointment and efforts to suppress unrest.	~60–62 AD
Ananias, High Priest	Acts 23:2–5 describes Ananias ordering Paul struck during his trial.	Antiquities 20.5.2 and 20.9.2 mention Ananias as high priest, later assassinated for corruption.	~47–59 AD

Explanations and Notes

Herod Agrippa I’s Death (44 AD):
- Acts: Portrays Agrippa’s death as divine judgment for accepting worship as a god, with an angel striking him, leading to death by worms (Acts 12:20–23).
- Josephus: Describes Agrippa falling ill at a festival in Caesarea, possibly due to poisoning or a medical condition, dying after five days (Antiquities 19.8.2). Both accounts align on the sudden and dramatic nature of his death.
- Historical Context: Agrippa I, king of Judea, was a key figure under Emperor Claudius. His death created a power vacuum, leading to direct Roman rule.
Gamaliel the Pharisee (~30–50 AD):
- Acts: Gamaliel, a respected Sanhedrin member, advises caution regarding the apostles, citing past failed movements (Acts 5:34–39).
- Josephus: Mentions Gamaliel as a leading Pharisee and teacher, influential in Jewish legal circles (Antiquities 20.9.4). He is likely the same figure, possibly Paul’s teacher (Acts 22:3).
- Note: The timing of Gamaliel’s speech in Acts aligns with early Christian persecution (~30–35 AD), though Josephus’s references are less specific.
Theudas the Insurrectionist (~44–46 AD):
- Acts: Gamaliel references Theudas’s failed revolt as an example of movements that collapse (Acts 5:36).
- Josephus: Describes Theudas leading followers to the Jordan River, claiming prophetic powers, but killed by Roman forces (Antiquities 20.5.1).
- Issue: Acts places Theudas before Judas the Galilean (6 AD), creating a chronological discrepancy, as Josephus dates Theudas to ~44–46 AD. This may reflect a narrative anachronism in Acts or a different Theudas.
Judas the Galilean (~6 AD):
- Acts: Mentions Judas’s revolt during the census, which failed (Acts 5:37).
- Josephus: Describes Judas leading a tax revolt against Rome during Quirinius’s census, founding the Zealot movement (Antiquities 18.1.1; Jewish War 2.8.1).
- Context: The census (6 AD) sparked widespread unrest, and Judas’s movement influenced later Jewish rebellions.
Famine under Claudius (~46–48 AD):
- Acts: Describes a famine predicted by Agabus, leading to Christian relief efforts (Acts 11:27–30).
- Josephus: Notes a severe famine in Judea, with Queen Helena of Adiabene providing aid (Antiquities 20.2.5).
- Context: The famine under Emperor Claudius aligns with historical records of grain shortages in the eastern Mediterranean.
Herod Agrippa II and Bernice (~59–62 AD):
- Acts: Agrippa II and Bernice hear Paul’s defense in Caesarea, with Agrippa noting Paul could have been freed if not for his appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:13–26:32).
- Josephus: Details Agrippa II’s role as a Roman client king and Bernice’s controversial presence (Antiquities 20.7.2–3).
- Context: Agrippa II ruled parts of Judea and advised Roman governors, while Bernice was a prominent figure, later linked to Titus.
Felix, Roman Governor (~52–60 AD):
- Acts: Felix oversees Paul’s trial, keeps him imprisoned, and hopes for a bribe (Acts 23:24–24:27).
- Josephus: Describes Felix’s governorship, marked by harsh measures against Jewish rebels (Antiquities 20.7.1–2).
- Context: Felix’s rule was turbulent, contributing to rising tensions in Judea.
Festus, Roman Governor (~60–62 AD):
- Acts: Festus succeeds Felix, hears Paul’s case, and sends him to Rome (Acts 24:27–25:12).
- Josephus: Notes Festus’s efforts to manage Jewish-Roman conflicts (Antiquities 20.8.9–10).
- Context: Festus’s brief governorship preceded the First Jewish-Roman War.
Ananias, High Priest (~47–59 AD):
- Acts: Ananias orders Paul struck during his trial, prompting Paul’s rebuke (Acts 23:2–5).
- Josephus: Describes Ananias’s corrupt tenure and eventual assassination by Jewish rebels (Antiquities 20.9.2).
- Context: Ananias was a polarizing figure, aligned with Roman interests.

Comparison: The Egyptian in Acts and Josephus

Event/Figure	Description in Acts	Description in Josephus	Approximate Date
The Egyptian (False Prophet/Rebel)	Acts 21:38 mentions a Roman tribune asking Paul if he is “the Egyptian” who led a revolt and took 4,000 “assassins” (Sicarii) into the wilderness.	Jewish War 2.13.5 and Antiquities 20.8.6 describe the Egyptian as a false prophet who led a large following (30,000, per Josephus) to the Mount of Olives, promising to overthrow Roman rule, but was defeated by Felix’s forces.	~52–58 AD

Detailed Comparison

The Egyptian in Acts:
- In Acts 21:38, during Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem, a Roman tribune (Claudius Lysias) mistakes Paul for “the Egyptian,” asking, “Are you not the Egyptian, then, who recently stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins (Sicarii) out into the wilderness?” (ESV). This implies the Egyptian was a known figure associated with a recent uprising.
- The “Sicarii” were a radical Jewish group known for assassinations, often targeting Roman collaborators. Acts suggests the Egyptian led a significant number of them, though the scale (4,000) is smaller than Josephus’s account.
The Egyptian in Josephus:
- In Jewish War 2.13.5, Josephus describes the Egyptian as a false prophet who gathered a large following—around 30,000 people—and led them to the Mount of Olives, claiming he would cause the walls of Jerusalem to fall, signaling the overthrow of Roman rule. Roman governor Felix attacked, dispersing the group, and the Egyptian escaped.
- In Antiquities 20.8.6, Josephus provides a similar account, noting the Egyptian’s messianic claims and Felix’s decisive response. He emphasizes the Roman crackdown on such movements, which were common during this period of unrest.
- The discrepancy in numbers (4,000 in Acts vs. 30,000 in Josephus) may reflect exaggeration by Josephus, a common trait in ancient historiography, or a difference in sources.
Historical Context and Overlap:
- Date: Both accounts place the Egyptian’s revolt during Felix’s governorship (52–60 AD), likely around 55–58 AD, aligning with the turbulent period leading up to the First Jewish-Roman War (66–73 AD).
- Nature of the Figure: Both sources depict the Egyptian as a messianic or prophetic figure leading a rebellious movement against Roman authority, fitting the pattern of 1st-century Jewish uprisings. Acts’ reference to the Sicarii connects him to violent resistance, while Josephus emphasizes his role as a false prophet with a large, albeit short-lived, following.
- Location: Acts mentions the wilderness, while Josephus specifies the Mount of Olives as the staging ground for the Egyptian’s demonstration, which overlooks Jerusalem—a symbolically significant location for messianic expectations.
Differences and Interpretation:
- Acts provides a brief, secondhand reference, using the Egyptian as a point of mistaken identity to highlight the Roman perception of Paul as a potential revolutionary. Josephus, writing as a historian, gives a more detailed narrative, focusing on the event itself and its political implications.
- The numerical difference (4,000 vs. 30,000) could stem from Acts relying on a Roman report (via the tribune) with a more conservative estimate, while Josephus, writing later, might inflate numbers to emphasize the scale of unrest under Roman rule.
- Neither source names the Egyptian, and his fate remains unclear—Josephus notes he fled, while Acts offers no further details.

Eschatological Drift

Theology often adapts to historical events, which helps explain the different views on the end times (eschatology) even among early Christians. For instance, in letters written before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70, Paul never links Christ’s return (the Parousia), the resurrection, or judgment to that event. Instead, he focuses on a general, future hope for all believers (e.g., 1 Corinthians 15:23; 1 Thessalonians 4:16), without mentioning the temple, which was still standing at the time.

In contrast, the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), likely written after the temple was destroyed, directly connect its fall to the Parousia. They portray the temple’s destruction as a sign of coming judgment and a lead-up to Christ’s return (Mark 13:2, 24–27; Matthew 24:2, 29–31; Luke 21:6, 20–28). Even so, they still view the resurrection as a future event, hinted at through symbols like the trumpet (Matthew 24:31) and affirmed in other teachings (Mark 12:25; Matthew 22:30; Luke 20:36).

Later still, the Gospel of John (written around AD 90–100) does not mention the temple’s destruction in relation to the Parousia or resurrection. Instead, it emphasizes a more spiritual or “realized” view of Christ’s presence now, while still affirming a future bodily resurrection (John 5:24–29). This reflects a shift toward a more universal theological perspective, no longer centered on the events of AD 70.

This development—from Paul’s silence on the temple, to the Synoptics’ focus on it, to John’s move beyond it—shows how early Christian beliefs about the end times evolved in response to historical changes.

1 Maccabees and Daniel 11

Below is a comparative list of 1 Maccabees and Daniel 11…

Comparative List and Chronological Alignment

1 Maccabees Event	Daniel 11 Reference	Chronological Alignment (Approximate Dates)	Notes
Seleucid oppression begins under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (1 Macc 1:10–20): Antiochus IV becomes king (175 BCE) and plunders Jerusalem, taking temple treasures.	Dan 11:21–24: A “contemptible person” (Antiochus IV) seizes the kingdom through intrigue, plunders wealth, and distributes spoil.	c. 175–170 BCE	Both texts describe Antiochus IV’s rise and early actions. Daniel’s prophecy symbolically portrays his deceit and greed, matching 1 Maccabees’ historical account of his looting.
Antiochus IV’s religious persecution (1 Macc 1:20–64): Antiochus bans Jewish practices (c. 167 BCE), desecrates the temple with a pagan altar (“abomination of desolation”), and enforces Hellenistic worship.	Dan 11:31: “Forces from him shall profane the sanctuary… and set up the abomination that makes desolate.”	c. 167 BCE	The “abomination of desolation” in Daniel aligns with the temple desecration in 1 Maccabees, often identified as the altar to Zeus in the Jerusalem temple.
Maccabean Revolt begins (1 Macc 2:1–70): Mattathias and his sons (Judas Maccabeus) resist Seleucid oppression, sparking the revolt (c. 167–166 BCE).	Dan 11:32: “The people who know their God shall stand firm and take action.”	c. 167–166 BCE	Daniel’s reference to a faithful remnant resisting aligns with the Maccabean uprising, though Daniel is less specific about the revolt’s leaders or details.
Judas Maccabeus’ victories (1 Macc 3:1–4:35): Judas wins battles against Seleucid generals (e.g., Apollonius, Seron, Gorgias) and recaptures Jerusalem, rededicating the temple (164 BCE).	Dan 11:32–33: The faithful “shall receive a little help” and continue to resist, though some fall.	c. 166–164 BCE	The “little help” in Daniel may allude to Judas’ early successes, though the prophecy remains vague. The temple rededication (Hanukkah) is not explicitly mentioned in Daniel.
Antiochus IV’s campaigns and death (1 Macc 6:1–16): Antiochus IV campaigns in the east, falls ill, and dies (164 BCE).	Dan 11:40–45: The King of the North engages in campaigns, faces turmoil, and dies with “no one to help him.”	c. 164 BCE	Both texts describe Antiochus IV’s eastern campaigns and death, though Daniel’s account is more symbolic and debated (some see Dan 11:40–45 as future or unfulfilled prophecy).
Continued Seleucid conflicts (1 Macc 6:18–9:57): After Antiochus IV’s death, the Maccabees face ongoing wars under Antiochus V and Demetrius I, with Judas dying (160 BCE).	Dan 11:35–39: Ongoing struggles for the faithful, with some falling, until “the time of the end.”	c. 164–160 BCE	Daniel’s vague reference to continued persecution may correspond to post-Antiochus IV conflicts in 1 Maccabees, but the prophecy shifts toward an eschatological tone.
Hasmonean consolidation (1 Macc 10:1–16:24): Jonathan and Simon establish Hasmonean rule, achieving relative independence (c. 160–134 BCE).	No clear parallel in Daniel 11	c. 160–134 BCE	Daniel 11 does not clearly address the later Hasmonean period, focusing instead on earlier Seleucid conflicts or possibly an eschatological future.

Daniel 9:25 Confusion

Below is a comparison of different translations rendering Daniel 9:25 (emphasis mine)…

There are some things to notice:

The NKJV uses the word “command,” while the other translations use “word.”
The NKJV capitalizes “Messiah the Prince,” while the others do not.
Artscroll does not use the term “messiah” or “anointed one.”
The NKJV writes “seven weeks and sixty-two weeks” consecutively, without a break, while the other translations do include a break–a period for the ESV, a semi colon for the NRSV, and a comma for Artscroll.

Firstly, the decision whether to the use “command” or “word” may depend on the translator’s bias. Do they want a decree from a king? Or a prophesy from a seer?

Secondly, the NKJV apparently wants the reader to believe this messiah is Jesus.

Third, I’ll include a possible explanation from AI as to why the Artscroll translation omits “messiah” below.

Fourth, the NKJV seems to want the reader to see the seven weeks and sixty-two weeks as occurring one right after the other, a straight sixty-nine week time period. However, the Hebrew may not allow for that. Consider the text below in Hebrew…

I asked AI (Grok and ChatGPT) if there was any mark with the word “seven” which would indicate a break after that word. This was the response…

So, there should be a break after the seven weeks*, which means that, according to the prophesy, the messiah mentioned in the verse likely should have appeared in history directly after the first seven weeks, or forty-nine years. If that’s correct, this messiah is not Jesus (although it can be seen as a type of Christ). The commentary in my Artscroll bible suggests it was Cyrus, and the commentary in my NRSV suggests it was the high priest Joshua (see Haggai 1:12; Ezra 2:2, 3:2; Zechariah 4:14, 6:10-12). Therefore, according to these commentaries, the “word” going out was not a kingly decree, but rather a prophesy–possibly spoken by Jeremiah (the NRSV suggests Jeremiah 25:11). Also notice how the NRSV refers to the “word” in the past tense, meaning that for Daniel it would have already been past tense and thus not a future decree of Cyrus. Daniel 9 begins with Darius the Mede still in power, which was before Cyrus.

Carol A. Newsom, in her commentary, suggests the author of Daniel 9 was not trying to pin down precise dates, but rather “to connect important events in history by means of a symbolic heptadonal system of time.”** We must take note of the seven weeks as being a time of jubilee (see Leviticus 25:8ff), and also the 490 years as being ten jubilee periods. It doesn’t necessarily matter when the 70 weeks began as long as we can connect the right events together, and since the theme of jubilee (freedom) is being focused on we can assume the events have to do with Jews regaining their autonomy and purpose as God’s people.

James B. Jordan, in his commentary, reads the 70 weeks as consecutive.*** He makes no mention of the apparent pause in the text after the first seven weeks. He also insists that the 70 weeks began with the decree of Cyrus in 537 BC. But, if the 70 weeks are read literally and consecutively, the prophesy takes us only to the year 47 BC. Jordan’s solution to this is to say that the first seven weeks were literal (from Cyrus’s decree to Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem). The following sixty-two weeks were symbolic, resulting in the last week being postponed. And the last week, or 70th week, was again literal, which started with the ministry of Jesus and ended with the death of Stephen in Acts 7. Jordan takes a few paragraphs to explain why the sixty-two weeks were symbolic, but basically he argues that God postpones judgement throughout scripture to be merciful, and also to harden the rebellious ones.

* There is no cantillation mark in the Hebrew which indicates there is any pause or break after the “sixty-two weeks” as the NKJV has it. There should be no period, semi colon, or comma after “sixty-two weeks.”

** Newsom, Carol A. Daniel: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press, 2014, p. 619.

*** Jordan, James B. The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel. American Vision, 2007, p. 469ff. I am quite certain Jordan’s translation of choice is the NASB, which renders Daniel 9:25 as: “So you are to know and understand that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with streets and moat, even in times of distress.” (emphasis mine)

***

Below is an explanation from AI as to why the Artscroll translation omits “messiah.”

1. The Hebrew Text and Translation Choices

The Hebrew of Daniel 9:25 reads:
וְתֵדַע וְתַשְׂכֵּל מִן-מֹצָא דָבָר לְהָשִׁיב וְלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם עַד-מָשִׁיחַ נָגִיד שִׁבְעָה שָׁבֻעִים וְשִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם שָׁבֻעִים תָּשׁוּב וְנִבְנְתָה רְחוֹב וְחָרוּץ וּבְצוֹק הָעִתִּים
Translated literally, this is:
“Know and understand: From the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem until an anointed one, a leader/prince (mashiach nagid), seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks, it will be rebuilt, street and moat, but in troubled times.”

The key phrase here is mashiach nagid. The ArtScroll translation you cited appears to focus on nagid (“leader” or “prince”) and omits or reinterprets mashiach (“anointed one”). This could stem from the following considerations:

Emphasis on Nagid: The term nagid means “leader,” “ruler,” or “prince” and is often used in the Hebrew Bible to denote a person of authority, such as a king or governor (e.g., Saul in 1 Samuel 9:16). In Daniel 9:25, nagid modifies mashiach, suggesting the “anointed one” is a leader or ruler. ArtScroll may have chosen to translate mashiach nagid as “the prince” to emphasize the leadership role and avoid the potentially loaded term mashiach.
Omission of Mashiach: By rendering mashiach nagid as “the prince,” ArtScroll may be simplifying the phrase to focus on the functional role (nagid) rather than the ritual status (mashiach, i.e., one anointed with oil). This could reflect a desire to avoid any messianic connotations associated with mashiach, especially given Christian interpretations that link this verse to Jesus as “the Messiah.”

2. Jewish Interpretive Tradition

Jewish exegesis of Daniel 9:25 varies widely, and ArtScroll, as an Orthodox Jewish translation, likely draws on traditional commentators like Rashi, Ibn Ezra, or Saadia Gaon. These scholars often interpret the mashiach nagid as a historical figure rather than an eschatological Messiah:

Rashi: Suggests the mashiach nagid could be Cyrus, King of Persia, who is called God’s “anointed” (mashiach) in Isaiah 45:1 and who issued the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1-3). Rashi emphasizes Cyrus as a nagid (leader) who facilitated the return from exile.
Ibn Ezra: Proposes the mashiach nagid might refer to Zerubbabel, a Davidic prince who led the rebuilding efforts, or Joshua, the high priest (Zechariah 6:11-12).
Saadia Gaon: Views the mashiach as a high priest or leader during the Second Temple period.

By translating mashiach nagid as “the prince,” ArtScroll aligns with interpretations that identify the figure as a historical leader (e.g., Cyrus, Zerubbabel, or a high priest) rather than an eschatological “Messiah.” The term “prince” captures the leadership aspect (nagid) while sidestepping the theological weight of mashiach.

3. Avoiding Messianic Connotations

As noted in my previous response, the term mashiach is sensitive due to Christian interpretations of Daniel 9:25 as a prophecy about Jesus. ArtScroll’s choice of “prince” instead of “anointed one” may be a deliberate move to:

Distance from Christian Readings: Christian translations, like the King James Version, render mashiach as “Messiah” to support the idea that the verse predicts Jesus’ arrival. By using “prince,” ArtScroll avoids any implication that this figure is the eschatological Messiah, aligning with Jewish theology that the Messiah has not yet come.
Neutralize Eschatological Implications: In Jewish thought, the ultimate Messiah (Messiah ben David) is associated with redemption, peace, and rebuilding the Temple, not with being “cut off” or the destruction of Jerusalem (Daniel 9:26). Translating mashiach nagid as “the prince” keeps the focus on a historical or temporal leader, avoiding confusion with Jewish messianic expectations.

4. ArtScroll’s Translation Philosophy

ArtScroll’s Tanach (Stone Edition) aims to provide a translation that is both accessible to modern readers and faithful to traditional Jewish exegesis. This involves:

Simplification for Clarity: The phrase mashiach nagid is complex, combining two terms with overlapping but distinct meanings. Rendering it as “the prince” simplifies the text for readers while conveying the idea of an authoritative figure, which nagid emphasizes.
Reliance on Rabbinic Commentary: ArtScroll often incorporates interpretations from classical Jewish sources (e.g., Rashi, Talmud) into its translation. By choosing “prince,” ArtScroll may be reflecting a specific rabbinic interpretation that prioritizes the historical context of Daniel 9:25 over a literal rendering of mashiach.
Consistency with Other Verses: In Daniel 9:26, the same mashiach is mentioned as being “cut off.” ArtScroll may avoid “anointed one” in 9:25 to maintain consistency with 9:26, where the term is similarly interpreted as a leader or prince, not the Messiah.

5. Textual and Grammatical Nuances

The ArtScroll translation you cited—”until the appointment of the prince”—suggests an interpretive addition. The Hebrew ad mashiach nagid (“until an anointed one, a leader”) does not explicitly include “appointment,” but this may reflect:

Masoretic Punctuation: The athnach (a disjunctive accent) in the Masoretic Text separates the “seven weeks” from the “sixty-two weeks,” implying the mashiach nagid appears after the seven weeks (49 years), possibly Cyrus or another early figure. ArtScroll’s “appointment” may interpret this as the moment the leader is designated or rises to prominence.
Dynamic Equivalence: ArtScroll sometimes opts for dynamic equivalence (conveying meaning over word-for-word translation) to make the text clearer. “Appointment of the prince” may be an attempt to clarify that the mashiach nagid is a divinely ordained leader, consistent with Jewish readings of the verse.

Conclusion

The ArtScroll Bible’s translation of Daniel 9:25 as “until the appointment of the prince” instead of “anointed one” reflects a combination of factors:

A focus on nagid (“leader/prince”) over mashiach (“anointed one”) to emphasize the figure’s role as a historical leader (e.g., Cyrus, Zerubbabel, or a high priest).
Alignment with Jewish interpretive traditions that reject eschatological or Christian messianic readings of the verse.
A translation philosophy that prioritizes clarity and rabbinic exegesis over literal rendering, avoiding the theologically charged term mashiach.
Sensitivity to Jewish theology, which reserves the term “Messiah” for the future redeemer, not a figure associated with destruction (Daniel 9:26).

This choice underscores ArtScroll’s commitment to presenting the text through the lens of Orthodox Jewish scholarship, avoiding interpretations that could be misconstrued as supporting Christian claims about Jesus.