Contingency, the Cutting Off of Messiah, and Daniel's Seventy Weeks

The question touches two closely related issues: (1) whether the suffering and "cutting off" of the Messiah were absolutely decreed in such a way that history could not have gone otherwise, and (2) whether Daniel's seventy‑weeks prophecy allows for a contingent path depending on Israel's response, especially in light of alternative Jewish interpretations such as those of Rashi.

subsection*A Contingent Suffering Messiah?

In the "Prophecy Reconsidered" series, one of the central theses was that the suffering of the Messiah---His rejection and cutting off---was presented in prophecy as a real possibility rather than an inescapable, mechanistic decree. In other words, the prophetic Scriptures present a genuine offer of the kingdom to Israel and set forth the consequences of acceptance or rejection.

A key passage for seeing contingency in the prophetic program is Malachi 4:5--6:

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse."

Here God explicitly introduces a "lest." Elijah's ministry is described as turning hearts, "lest" a curse come. That "lest" is the language of contingency. The coming of the curse is not presented as an absolute inevitability, irrespective of Israel's response; it is presented as a real outcome conditioned on whether the nation responds rightly.

Given such clear contingency at the close of the Old Testament, it is reasonable to ask whether certain aspects of the Messiah's suffering and cutting off, as described in prophetic texts, also have a conditional aspect. That does not mean prophecy fails; it means prophecy includes conditional structures: if Israel repents and receives, one set of foretold realities unfolds; if Israel rejects, another set does.

Thus, to your first question: yes, I believe the cutting off of the Messiah in Daniel 9 can be understood as contingent in relation to Israel's response, even while the seventy weeks themselves are "determined." The determination of a time structure does not demand a single rigid path that ignores all stated contingencies.

subsection*Alternative Readings of Daniel 9: The Rashi Example

To illustrate that Daniel 9 can be read in substantially different, yet textually serious, ways, consider a classic Jewish interpretation from Rashi, as presented in sources such as Chabad's edition of the Tanakh with commentary.

Daniel 9:24 says that "seventy weeks" are determined. Rashi, commenting from a Jewish historical viewpoint, understands these as "weeks of years" spanning from the first destruction (in the days of Zedekiah) to the second destruction (70 A.D.). On that reading, the seventy‑weeks scheme terminates not in a yet‑future tribulation period but in the events surrounding the destruction of the second temple.

Daniel 9:25, in many English translations, reads:

"Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks..."

Rashi, reflecting the Jewish Publication Society's rendering, reads:

"From the emergence of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed king shall be seven weeks..."

He identifies this "anointed king" not with Jesus of Nazareth but with Cyrus, king of Persia, whom God calls "His anointed" in Isaiah. On that view:

• The "anointed king" is Cyrus.
• The time marker spans from the destruction to the era of Cyrus, who authorizes the rebuilding.

Then, in Daniel 9:26:

"After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off..."

Rashi reads:

"After the 62 weeks, the anointed one will be cut off and he will be no more."

He identifies this anointed one with Agrippa, the last king of Judah at the time of the second temple's destruction.

One may disagree with these identifications, but from a grammatical and historical perspective, such interpretations cannot be dismissed as impossible. They demonstrate that Daniel 9 has been legitimately read in multiple ways:

• With the "anointed one" as the Messiah Jesus.
• With the "anointed one" as Cyrus in one verse and Agrippa in another.
• With the seventy weeks terminating at 70 A.D.
• With the seventy weeks extending into a future tribulation.

The text itself allows different linkages, and different traditions (Jewish, dispensational, etc.) apply different historical anchors.

subsection*Does That Make Agrippa's Death "Decreed" in Daniel?

Under Rashi's interpretation, Daniel 9:26 refers to Agrippa's death as the "cutting off" of the anointed one. In that view, yes, Agrippa's death is seen as encompassed within Daniel's prophetic scheme.

That does not mean that you or I must adopt that specific identification. The point of bringing Rashi into the discussion is not to endorse his entire scheme, but to show that:

• The passage admits multiple plausible readings.
• Our familiar Christian/dispen-sational reading is not the only high‑level, text‑based interpretation in existence.
• Therefore, we must be cautious about claiming that only one interpretive path is possible or biblically legitimate.

If one were to adopt Rashi's reading in full, Agrippa's death would indeed be part of what was "determined." If we do not adopt that reading, the question becomes: how does our own reading handle contingency and fulfillment?

subsection*Can the Seventy Weeks Be "Determined" and Yet Contingent?

The phrase "seventy weeks are determined" indicates that God has set a temporal structure in relation to Jerusalem, Israel, and certain redemptive purposes. However, "determined" need not mean that every detail of how those weeks unfold is fixed in a way that ignores moral response.

We see examples in Scripture where:

• A time frame is given.
• Yet within that time frame, human response is addressed as significant and genuinely influential (e.g., the exile's length in Jeremiah and Daniel, combined with calls to prayer and repentance; Malachi's "lest I come and smite the earth with a curse").

Applied to Daniel 9, this suggests at least two layers:

1. A divinely set framework: There is an overall structure---seventy sevens---within which God will address transgression, sin, reconciliation, and anointing of what is most holy.
2. A responsive element: How Israel responds to the message of Elijah, John the Baptist, and the Messiah Himself has real bearing on which aspects of the prophetic program come into play and when.

The New Testament hints at this kind of contingency when it speaks of John the Baptist as fulfilling an Elijah‑type role, with language like "if ye will receive it." That wording indicates a genuine offer, not a dramatic script in which human responses are mere appearances.

Thus, one can affirm that the seventy weeks are determined and still hold that the cutting off of Messiah, as part of that framework, is contingent in terms of how it is triggered in history, based on Israel's acceptance or rejection of the kingdom offer.

subsection*Multiple Legitimate Interpretations and the Need for Study

For students of prophecy, this means at least three things:

1. We must recognize that Daniel 9 can be, and has been, read in multiple ways by serious interpreters. We should not be afraid of looking at alternative readings, whether Jewish (like Rashi) or Christian (including those that differ from mainstream dispensationalism).
2. We should distinguish clearly between: beginitemize
3. What the text explicitly states.
4. What we infer historically.
5. What we add philosophically.

item We should keep working toward a robust reading that:

• Honors the literal text.
• Acknowledges the real contingencies God Himself states (as in Malachi 4:5--6).
• Avoids flattening prophecy into a single rigid track that leaves no room for genuine offers and conditional outcomes.

endenumerate

So, to answer your core question: yes, the cutting off of Messiah in Daniel 9 can be understood as contingent, even while the seventy weeks remain a determined framework. And yes, some Jewish interpretations see that passage as decreeing specific historical deaths (such as Agrippa's). Our task is to study these options carefully, weigh them against the whole of Scripture, and articulate an interpretation that takes seriously both the sovereignty of God and the real, God‑given significance of human response.