Imagine a young boy who believes in Santa Claus. He believes that the presents he finds under the tree each Christmas morning were placed there by a magical man who came down the chimney, and who afterward hopped on his sleigh pulled by flying reindeer.
But, one Christmas Eve, the boy decides he wants to see Santa for real and so he sneaks out of his room late at night hoping to catch Santa in action. What he does see, however, is his own parents carefully laying out presents, one by one, around the base of the tree. And so, he knows the truth. It is in fact his own parents who are delivering the goods.
Now, with this knowledge, would it be proper for the boy to then believe that it is his own parents who slid down the chimney? And it his own parents who will fly off into the night on the sleigh? No, of course not. The boy must disregard the entire Santa narrative. There’s no one coming down the chimney. It’s all his parents buying the presents from the store, wrapping them out of sight, and placing them under the tree. Once the boy discovers the truth about one thing, he must apply that truth to everything else.
First Century Cosmology
First century Christians did not have telescopes. They believed the realm above them was a series of layers transcending the dome of the sky. They believed that angels and God literally resided in and above the layers containing the sun, moon, and stars. God’s throne room was a literal place up in what we would call “outer space.” When Jesus ascended up to the Father, to sit at His right hand, Jesus literally went up to sit on a literal throne in a literal throne room.
Since Jesus was up in outer space, of course when He returns, he will return from outer space. Where else would He come from?
21st Century Cosmology
Today we have telescopes. We know that we live in one galaxy among billions, and that each galaxy contains billions, if not trillions, of stars. The universe is so vast, it is beyond comprehension. In fact, the universe is likely infinite. We know this now.
We know that there is no Santa. Therefore, is it proper for us to continue to believe that one day the world will see Jesus descending down to the earth through the layers of the heavens as they believed He would in the 1st century? Should we combine their cosmology with our own? No, of course not. Ask any Christian today where heaven is, and unless he’s a flat-earther, he will likely say that heaven is located in the spiritual realm, someplace beyond the material realm that we do not have access to.
New Testament Eschatological Language
New Testament (NT) eschatology is primarily Israel’s eschatology. The Church’s eschatology builds upon it, but then transcends it. The cosmos coming under judgement for the NT authors was the Israelite cosmos. The end was near, at hand, at the door, soon, and about to happen. Every NT author believed he was living in the last days. And he was, to the degree that the old order of things was coming to an end. The apocalyptic language of the NT reflects this.
Israel’s eschatology is not the Church’s eschatology. The Church’s eschatology is this: Just as a dragnet draws all the fish into the boat, so is all creation being drawn to the Father by the redemptive work of Christ. We don’t know when this work will be complete, and we don’t know what it will finally look like. For now it is beyond our comprehension, beyond our reach.
It’s okay to be somewhat agnostic when it comes to eschatology. Embrace the mystery. Whatever you do, don’t go on believing that your dad has a pack of flying reindeer hidden away in a barn somewhere.
We Are Not Israel
Israel is gone. Our faith is not “Judeo/Christian.” We are just Christian. Yes, Jesus was the Messiah Israel was waiting for, but He was not the Messiah they were expecting. Jesus was not the blood soaked Davidic warrior coming to destroy Rome and establish a powerful Israelite theocracy the 1st century Jews were hoping for. This is why He was rejected.
Jesus subverted all Messianic expectations. His kingdom is not of this world. He came to conquer a higher enemy. He came to do the will of the Father, not Israel. The Father’s will is to redeem His creation. This is what Christianity is: The redemption of creation through Christ.
For Christians, Israel has become allegory. The Old Testament scriptures are transformed to types and shadows. It’s not our literal history. It’s our mythology.
Most Christians live like this even if not fully aware of it. They may say the stories are literal history, but they always apply the stories allegorically to their own life’s journey. It doesn’t matter if the stories are literal history or not; anything to do with Israel we allegorize.
Jesus is not coming down from the sky. Israelite cosmology is not true. That’s okay, because we are Christians. We know more. We’ve seen more. We know what is mythology and what is reality. We know the truth, and what we know is true; we must apply it to everything else.
All theological positions are based on one’s philosophy of life, not the scriptures.
It’s like a game of Dodgeball. The team you’re on is determined by your philosophical presuppositions. The scriptures are just the balls being thrown around.
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.
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…
Grok
ChatGPT
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.
Pursuit of Percipience 