There are
457BC, and 444 BC both have problems. It was going to be 49 years until the city was rebuilt. The decree given 445 BC was only for the walls ,and they rebuilt them in 52 days (Nehemiah 4) so by 445 BC the whole city had been rebuilt. 445-49=396 BC, 457- 49 = 408 BC but again everything was rebuilt by 445 BC. If 445 BC was the end of 49 years then it means "the decree" went out 49 years earlier 494 BC but then that poses problems for the crucifixion date. If you use an earlier decree of Cyrus or Darius it causes even worse problems for the crucifixion date. So.... the archaeological dates appear to be wrong. It might be easier to date the crucifixion using NT sources like you did then work backwards.
2 Thessalonians 2 meant the physical standing temple at the time that had the holy spirit in it. This ceased to exist 70 AD. The prophecy is set within the first century. It happened before 70 AD.
All of Math 24 happened 70 AD. See the thread on Enoch, and Jude I made.
Jude, and 1 Enoch
Revelation was written 41 AD. Paul in 2 Corinthians 55 AD said he knew someone 14 years earlier caught up to heaven that saw things that can't be written which is what happens to John in Revelation; an angel tells him don't write some things down. Paul doesn't say it was the author of Revelation he is talking about because he does not want to boast. Internally in Rev 11 the temple is still standing, and being destroyed, and Daniel 9 which ended 70 AD said vision, and prophecy would stop 70 AD, and Revelation contains vision, and prophecy. I reject external evidence if it conflicts with inspired scripture therefore I reject apocryphal acts of John (150 AD), and Irenaeus (180 AD) that say Revelation was written in the 90s AD under Domitian.
63-70 AD was the final 7. Eleazar Ben Hanania stops the daily sacrifice in the temple 66 AD that the Judeans had been doing for the Romans (not the torah ones) [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing off the Romans, and starting the Judean Roman wars. The torah ones stopped 70 AD due to no one do do them. It is referring to these daily sacrifices Exodus 29.38-43; Numbers 28:1-8 Leviticus 6.8-13. When the daily sacrifice stops in Dan8, and 11, and someone puts up an abomination of desolation in the temple that was about Maccabees, and Antiochus 4 when he stopped the animal sacrifices, and put a greek god statue in the temple so when Dan 9 uses the same language it is about stopping sacrifices in the temple, and someone putting a statue in it around 70 AD. It is not about Jesus holding up the cup, and saying this is the new covenant, and he did not put a statue in the temple. I will make another post about the problems with the Daniel decree numbers.
Dear Brother, Thank you for the reply and wonderful interest in history and deeply study to understand deeply the word of God. I want to give response point by point of your response.
1) On 457, 445/444, 494 BC and the “49 years”
You’re right to press this hard, the decree issue is the single most contentious hinge in Daniel studies.
- Daniel 9:25 speaks of “seven sevens and sixty-two sevens” (שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁשִׁים וּשְׁנַיִם). Many interpreters read the “seven sevens” (49 years) as a phrase expecting a building phase. That’s a legitimate reading.
- Nehemiah 2 (20th year of Artaxerxes) (commonly dated ~445/444 BC) is a decree that focuses on the walls (Ne 2), and Nehemiah reports the walls rebuilt in a short time (Ne 6:15 says 52 days). That strongly supports the view that the walls were repaired quickly after Nehemiah’s mission.
- Ezra 7 (457 BC), by contrast, is a broader decree with restoration language (including re-establishing temple services, the law, and community life). Daniel’s phrase מִן-מֹצָא דָּבָר לְהָשִׁיב וּלִבְנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָם “from the issuing of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem” can be read as pointing to a restoration decree (Ezra) rather than a narrow wall decree.
So your observation is historically exact: if one treats
Nehemiah’s decree as the starting point, the math and the meaning of “seven sevens” need careful handling. If the walls were rebuilt by 445, then the 49-year expectation must be read differently (e.g., the 49 years could refer to complete civil/ritual restoration rather than walls alone). That’s why scholars disagree: different decrees produce different chronologies.
Bottom line: You’re right to point out the tension. It’s honest to say
no decree candidate is problem-free. The best way forward is to test each decree (Cyrus, Darius, Artaxerxes 7/Ezra 457, Artaxerxes 20/Nehemiah 445) against (a) Daniel’s Hebrew wording, (b) what the decree actually authorized, and (c) the NT data about Jesus’ ministry.
2) On using New Testament anchors (dating the crucifixion and working backward)
That is a very practical and scriptural method. The Gospels give multiple synchronisms:
- John places Jesus’ ministry around the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1 context), and Luke indicates Jesus was “about thirty” when he began (Luke 3:23).
- The synoptic chronology, passion narratives, and Passover timing converge on c. 30–33 AD as the plausible window for the crucifixion.
So yes ! using the NT
first to set the crucifixion window, then testing which decree and calendar system best lines up with that window, is a sensible hermeneutical strategy. If a particular decree + calendar forces a crucifixion year outside 30–33 AD, that’s a strong strike against that option.
3) On 360-day prophetic years and the calendar question
You rightly point to several texts that use symbolic/360-day reckoning (e.g., Revelation’s 1,260 days / 42 months / 3½ years). The
prophetic calendar is a real phenomenon in apocalyptic literature.
Important cautions:
- Daniel 9 does not use days, it uses שָׁבֻעִים (“weeks” = sevens). The text itself does not specify how many days to a prophetic year. Applying a 360-day year is interpretive rather than mandated by Daniel’s Hebrew.
- If you choose to convert 483 “years” into 360-day prophetic years the arithmetic will shift the resulting AD date (as interlocutors showed). That arithmetic can be done, but it’s a hermeneutical option, not a textual requirement.
So your approach is consistent and defensible
if you explicitly state you are imposing a prophetic/360-day year on Daniel. The critics’ pushback is mostly that Daniel’s language doesn’t compel that move.
4) On Eleazar ben Hanania (stopping sacrifices) and the 63–70 AD final week
You’re right:
Josephus records that the zealots interfered with sacrificial practice and that the Jewish War disrupted regular temple service (see Josephus,
The Jewish War). That event is a plausible
historical candidate for a “stopping of sacrifices” in a historical fulfillment sense.
But a few clarifications:
- In Daniel’s context (and classical interpretation of v.27), the figure who “makes a covenant with many” and then “puts an end to sacrifice and offering” sounds like a centralized ruler who asserts authority and sets up an abomination. Antiochus IV (the Maccabean type) fits that mold historically for Dan 8/11; some interpreters see a Roman/antichristic figure in v.27.
- Eleazar/the Zealots stopping sacrifices is better read as internal cessation (a breakdown caused by factional Jewish action during the revolt) rather than an external ruler imposing an abomination. That’s why many see 66–70 AD as a partial, typological fulfillment (a local realization of the pattern), but not the complete fulfillment of the covenant-making/abomination language that Daniel 9:27 seems to require.
- In short: 66–70 AD is important and typological, but the full suite of Daniel 9:27 details (covenant with many, abomination, global consequences, consummation) are not exhaustively matched by the Zealot activity recorded by Josephus.
5) On Matthew 24, 2 Thessalonians 2 and the scope of fulfillment
You assert strongly that Matthew 24 and 2 Thess 2 are fulfilled in AD 70. That is a legitimate
preterist position (especially full preterism or classical preterism). A few balanced observations:
- Partial/preterist readings: Many elements of Jesus’ Olivet discourse refer to the coming destruction of the Temple and the judgment on Jerusalem (AD 70). Jesus uses that event as a type or foreshadow of the final Day of the Lord.
- Futurist/continued-fulfillment readings: Other elements in Matthew 24 (cosmic signs, Son of Man coming, angelic gathering) are read by many as future or multiple-stage fulfillments. That is why NT writers (Paul, John) still speak of future events in terms similar to Daniel’s.
So your claim that
“all of Matthew 24 happened 70 AD” is a strongly held interpretive stance with good internal logic but it’s not the only biblical reading. It’s important to show which verses you take as strictly AD-70 and which you allow to have a future or double application.
6) On the date of Revelation
You reject the late date (Domitianic 90s AD) and favor an early date (you said 41 AD). Two notes:
- Almost all patristic testimony and early tradition assign Revelation to the Domitianic period (c. 95 AD). Fathers like Irenaeus explicitly connect it to Domitian’s time. That’s why critical scholarship overwhelmingly favors the 90s dating.
- An early date (c. 60s or earlier) is a minority position; a 41 AD date has virtually no attestation in early tradition and raises serious problems with the John authorship and the book’s relationship to later persecution imagery.
If you choose an early date, you must wrestle with the external testimony of the early church and with internal indicators such as the state of the seven churches and the references to an existing imperial cult. It’s not impossible to argue early, but it is a heavy revision of patristic consensus.
7) On “vision & prophecy sealed up by 70 AD”
You cite Daniel 9:24 (the vision being sealed) and propose the sealing is accomplished in AD 70. Some remarks:
- Daniel himself is told the vision will be sealed until the time of the end (Dan 12:4,9). Many read “sealed” as meaning sealed in part kept until later clarity rather than “completely stopped and never to be opened again.”
- The NT (Jesus, Paul, John) continues to use Danielic language after AD 70, which suggests that even if AD 70 realized certain patterns, the biblical canon continues to interpret and expand Danielic themes. That argues for continuing rather than final sealing.
Blessings
Pastor Waris
www.foxnews.com
