The Gap in the Seventy Weeks

The seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9 is hugely important for the rapture question. It establishes the timetable for the consummation of God’s plan for Israel, and it defines the tribulation period (Dan. 9:27). The proper name for the tribulation is Daniel’s seventieth week (the prophecy is given in groups of seven years, or weeks of years). The chapter begins with Daniel praying to the Lord, confessing on behalf of his people (Dan. 9:20). “As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this disaster has come upon us; yet we have not made our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities and understand Your truth” (Dan. 9:13). Israel should have repented after seventy years of Babylonian captivity, but they did not.

While Daniel was still praying, the angel Gabriel came to him with a Divine response: “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city.” As Gundry observed earlier, this period of time clearly has to do with Israel. Gabriel explains that the seventy weeks are for the ultimate restoration of Israel and Jerusalem (v. 24). They will begin from the command to rebuild Jerusalem (v. 25), and “after” sixty-nine weeks have passed, Messiah will be cut off, and the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by a certain people. Verse 27 begins, “then” (NKJV), a prince from the people who destroyed the city “shall confirm a covenant with many for one week.” This is the last week mentioned in the seventy weeks prophecy, so this is Daniel’s seventieth week, the tribulation. Nearly all premillennialists recognize that there is a gap of time between the sixty-ninth and seventieth week that is still elapsing, but what led to it? What took place in the gap? And what is causing the delay?

Daniel knew that Israel had not repented after the seventy years in Babylon, and Gabriel revealed that they would endure a period seven times longer before the restoration would finally come (cf. Lev. 26:18). When the seventy sevens were almost expired, Messiah Himself came, preaching, “repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). Yet Israel still did not repent. Even in the early days of the Church, the apostles appealed to them, implying that the restoration of all things awaits the repentance of Israel (Acts 3:19-21). Their refusal of this offer drives the narrative of Acts, just as their persecution of the early Church drove the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 7-10). Israel’s rejection of Messiah and stubborn resistance to the gospel is surprising to the NT audience, and much of the NT involves coming to terms with this development in God’s sovereign plan.

The Reason for the Gap

“But it is not as though God’s word has failed…” Paul begins Romans chapter 9. Three chapters later he has concluded that God’s word has not failed, because God has not cast aside His people completely (Rom. 11:1-10), and He has not cast them away permanently (Rom. 11:11-28). There is a remnant of Israel still connected to the Abrahamic root.[1] This remnant is made up of the Jewish members of the Church like Paul, but God “cut off” the nation as a whole (Rom. 9:31-33; 10:1-2; 11:7). God only allowed them to fall for a temporary purpose, however—to allow for this current economy:

 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. Now if their fall is riches for the world, and their failure riches for the Gentiles, how much more their fullness! 

Romans 11:11-12

 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said...

Romans 11:19-20

Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake… For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy.

Romans 11:28-31

This state of blindness to the gospel characterizes the present age for Israel and is itself a mystery (Rom. 11:25). One of God’s purposes for this economy is to make Israel jealous so she might be restored (Rom. 11:11, 30-32), and Paul warns the Gentiles that if they do not continue to respond to this privileged position with faith, they too will be cut off from the Abrahamic tree of blessing (Rom. 11:19-24). Bible teacher and theologian H. A. Ironside explains:

And if the Gentile nations have thus been so highly privileged, why should anyone wonder if, upon their failure, God should turn back again to Israel and graft in the natural branches into their own olive tree?[2]

When will this shift occur? The partial blindness on Israel will remain “until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in” (Rom. 11:25). When God’s purpose in this mystery period—of Israelite blindness, of Gentile blessing, of Jew and Gentile in one new man—has ended, then the blindness will be removed.

This is the logic for the time of the Church. The blindness of Israel delays the seventy weeks, and allows for this time of Gentile privilege, and hence, the Church. The delay allows for God to “[visit] the Gentiles and take out a people for His name” (Acts 15:14). When the Church is complete, the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, which means the blindness can end, which means the seventy weeks can resume and all Israel can be saved (Rom. 11:26).

The delay in God’s plan for Israel is for the Church, and when the Church is complete and raptured to her home in heaven, Israel will be grafted back into the olive tree, allowing God’s plan for Israel to continue.

Douglas Moo warned, in part 1, of the danger of circular reasoning. This argument, however, does not assume a pretribulation rapture and argue in a circle; it connects certain concepts in biblical theology: the gap, the mystery of Israelite blindness, and the mystery of the Church. The biggest assumption in the argument is that Christ will rapture His Bride when her number is complete, but there is no good reason to reject this idea without strong evidence to the contrary.

Is the Door Open for the Church in the Seventieth Week?

Part 1 referred to Robert Gundry’s framing of the rapture debate. He says:

In the chronological question concerning the rapture, the dispensational issue centers in the field of ecclesiology. An absolute silence in the OT about the present age, a total disconnection of the Church from the divine program for Israel, and a clean break between dispensations would favor pretribulationism: the Church would not likely be related to the seventieth week of Daniel, or tribulation, a period of time clearly having to do with Israel.

But a partial revelation of the present age in the OT, a connection (not necessarily identification) between Israel and the Church, and a dispensational change involving a transitional period open the door to the presence of the Church during the tribulation.[3]

As shown in Part 2, however, the transition from an Israelite remnant to the body of Christ does qualify as a “clean break,” since the Church began suddenly on the day of Pentecost. He is right that Israel has some connection to the Church—she gave birth to the Church, and she gave birth to Christ Whose body the Church is. Israel’s rejection makes way for the Church, and one purpose of the Church is to provoke Israel to jealousy.

This connection does not do what Gundry needs it to, however. It does not necessitate or even suggest an overlap with Israel’s prophetic timetable. The connection is one of displacement, or contrast; one must be removed for the sake of the other. The natural branches were broken off so that this present age characterized by Gentile blessing can happen through the Church.

Finally, the OT does remain “absolutely silent” on the Church. The OT implies a gap in the seventy weeks, it hints at the ascension of Christ, but the time of the Church is within that gap, her existence because of His ascension. These are not strictly identical. The fact that Psalm 110, for example, predicts Christ’s present session does not mean that Psalm 110 revealed the Church.

The rest of the series will examine some key passages in the rapture debate and discuss how ecclesiology effects their interpretation. Matthew 24:31 is next.

---

[1] Romans 11:16 introduces the olive tree metaphor with a parallelism. The firstfruit to Israel’s lump, and the root to her branches are the Patriarchs (verse 28). The olive tree is the promise to Abraham. God is now using the olive tree to nourish the wild branches He has grafted in, contrary to nature. God intended the promise to one day benefit the Gentiles (“all the families of the earth”), but God is now revealing His hidden intention to bless Gentiles before completing His purpose for Israel. Notably, mid-tribulationist Gleason Archer confuses this olive tree metaphor with the body of Christ. Archer, Three Views, 137.

[2] H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1943), 93.

[3] Gundry, Church and Tribulation, 12.