Daniel Commentary Recommendations
I am looking for a commentary on Daniel that is:
1. Pastoral or Technical
2. Written from the Historic Premillennial position (Not dispensational or ammillennial)
3. And ideally, available in Logos.
4. Even more ideally, available individually. (Not stuck in a bundle like NICOT/NT)
This is not a thread for debate about eschatology. Resist the temptation! Focus people! 
Comments
I wasn't about to point to you something that's not under contract yet but because you said Premill. all I could think of is
http://www.logos.com/product/10050/classic-commentaries-and-studies-on-daniel which Im sure would have some.Or maybe not...I might be think Pre-Trib. I get those mixed up.[:@]
I have put in a bid on the Classic Commentaries and Studies on Daniel, and am hopeful of the treasure trove therein. As far as I know, James Boice is a HP, so I may pick up his work on Daniel, but other than that, I'm at a loss. Was hoping that I was missing something!
I'm happy you put a bid in for that set...its been lagging. While this commentary adheres to premillennial dispensationalism it is very good: New American Commentary: Daniel
While this commentary adheres to premillennial dispensationalism it is very good: New American Commentary: Daniel
I've just read this one. It was clearly written and easy to follow compared to the other commentary that I was reading. It says what it has to say without getting bogged down in the arguments.
There are some places where the author's preconceptions seem to lead to the conclusions without really providing arguments that take me with him. A lot of the footnotes refer to secondary works rather than the original documents, and a few of them I couldn't track down exactly what he was referring to in a primary document. However, this makes for an easy-going commentary for the educated reader but without overwhelming detail. It can probably be classed as pastoral.
I'm happy you put a bid in for that set...its been lagging. While this commentary adheres to premillennial dispensationalism it is very good: New American Commentary: Daniel
I have NAC, and you're right, it's a helpful commentary regardless of the hermeneutical approach.
See if you can get a hold Uriah's Smith book on Daniel.
Thanks Lynden! Uriah Smith indeed wrote from the Historic/Covenant Premillennial position. I was able to find a pdf version of his work on Daniel and Revelation (which is found in (http://www.logos.com/product/16019/church-of-god-digital-library-collection-13). I doubt that I'll break down and buy the collection for this particular resource.
However, Smith's work 'Thoughts, Critical and Practical, on the Book of Daniel' is in http://www.logos.com/product/10050/classic-commentaries-and-studies-on-daniel. I'll wait for that one.
Any other recommendations?
Hey Devin!
When taking a break from doing your Literary Commentary on Ruth [:D] you could find out who from the MTS faculty teaches Dan-Rev and ask for a personal reference from his syllabus bibliography.
Making Disciples! Logos Ecosystem = LogosMax on Microsoft Surface Pro 7 (Win11), Android app on tablet, FSB on iPhone & iPad mini, Proclaim (Proclaim Remote on Fire Tablet).
Any other recommendations?
Take a look at these.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
Please be aware that all SDA commentaries on Daniel (including that of Mr. Smith) use the year 1844 as the foundation for interpreting the prophecy. All dates and numbers must point to 1844 in their eyes. Research investigative judgment, the sanctuary doctrine, the prophet, E.G.White, etc. Not reliable resources, in my view.See if you can get a hold Uriah's Smith book on Daniel.
Please be aware that all SDA commentaries on Daniel (including that of Mr. Smith) use the year 1844 as the foundation for interpreting the prophecy. All dates and numbers must point to 1844 in their eyes. Research investigative judgment, the sanctuary doctrine, the prophet, E.G.White, etc. Not reliable resources, in my view.See if you can get a hold Uriah's Smith book on Daniel.
Whoa...I just did a quick search on Seventh Day Adventist eschatology. The idea that Jesus entered a second phase of His redemptive work on October 22, 1844 is unsettling to me. Good catch Andy.
Whoa...I just did a quick search on Seventh Day Adventist eschatology. The idea that Jesus entered a second phase of His redemptive work on October 22, 1844 is unsettling to me. Good catch Andy.Their prophet Supported several different fallacies concerning the 1844, sanctuary, investigative judgment debacle. The organization is locked into defending those doctrines....or they undermine the credibility of their prophet. They first predicted Christ's return on that date. When that didn't happen, The story eventually evolved into the cleansing of the Heavenly Temple...And Christ entering the Most Holy Place to begin an investigative judgment.
My Bible tells me that Christ completed his work of atonement On The Cross, [:)] He joined the Father on the throne at His ascension, And that the Judgment occurs after Christ's return.
Andy and Joshua, he asked for books on Daniel that approached it from a historical premillenium perspective. Unless I misunderstand what he wants, these books serve that purpose. Whether or not he agrees with some, all or little of what the authors wrote is up to him.
Diversity never hurt anyone. Most of the books in my library have some information that I do not agree with. By the way, my profile does say that I am a Seventh-day Adventist.
Not the place to discuss the Sanctuary, atonement, or date for the 2300 day prophecy. Logos is making a forum for such topics. When that is complete, then we can have Bible study. If you have burning questions that must be answered, go to the website and look up the documents section, there is plenty of material there.
Blessings in the Lord.
Mission: To serve God as He desires.
Andy and Joshua, he asked for books on Daniel that approached it from a historical premillenium perspective.The title of the thread is "Daniel Commentary Recommendations." I simply recommended that he be aware of the basis of SDA prophecy interpretation.
Hey Devin!
When taking a break from doing your Literary Commentary on Ruth
you could find out who from the MTS faculty teaches Dan-Rev and ask for a personal reference from his syllabus bibliography.
[Y] Good call David! Hope God is blessing your studies this semester!
*edit: I forgot to quote David originally. Oops!
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:128;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:fixed;
mso-font-signature:1 134676480 16 0 131072 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Cambria;
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:10.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:"ＭＳ 明朝";
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-fareast-language:JA;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
I do not espouse to the same presuppositions as the SDA (I have my own presuppositions thank you very much[Y]
Please be aware that all SDA commentaries on Daniel (including that of Mr. Smith) use the year 1844 as the foundation for interpreting the prophecy.I think it's unfair to say that All SDAs hold this view. For instance, Raymond Cottrell did not. From Wikipedia:
Raymond Forrest Cottrell (April 21, 1911, Los Angeles, California– January 12, 2003, Calimesa, California) was a respected Adventist theologian, missionary, teacher, writer and editor. He was an associate editor of both the Adventist Review (the church's official news magazine) and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Raymond Cottrell, is seen by some as a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.
Below is a link to a paper he wrote discussing the inaccuracies surrounding the organization's interpretation of Daniel.
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/1844rc.htm
The article begins:
The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined.
[^o)] HHHMMMmmm~~~ [^o)]
I stand corrected. I took the time to read the paper. Mr Cottrell did a wonderful job of analyzing the controversial, prophetic passages in Daniel. He was a lifelong SDA who dedicated 17 years of his life studying those passages in the original languages. At the end of all that, He had to admit that the SDA organization's interpretation runs counter to Scripture. He also recounts events where others attempted to get the SDAs to scrap their unsupportable doctrines. Those men were disfellowshipped for their efforts. It's all in the paper....An enlightening read. I highly recommend it.Please be aware that all SDA commentaries on Daniel (including that of Mr. Smith) use the year 1844 as the foundation for interpreting the prophecy.I think it's unfair to say that All SDAs hold this view. For instance, Raymond Cottrell did not. From Wikipedia:Raymond Forrest Cottrell (April 21, 1911, Los Angeles, California– January 12, 2003, Calimesa, California) was a respected Adventist theologian, missionary, teacher, writer and editor. He was an associate editor of both the Adventist Review (the church's official news magazine) and the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary. Raymond Cottrell, is seen by some as a "progressive Adventist", as he disagreed with certain traditional positions of the church, including the investigative judgment.
Below is a link to a paper he wrote discussing the inaccuracies surrounding the organization's interpretation of Daniel.
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/1844rc.htm
The article begins:
The traditional interpretation of Daniel 8:14 with its sanctuary and investigative judgment, which gave birth to Seventh-day Adventism and accounts for its existence as a distinct entity within Christendom, has been the object of more criticism and debate, by both Adventists and non-Adventists, than all other facets of its belief system combined.
An enlightening read. I highly recommend it.
Others have quoted the opening remarks. But near the end is a gem. [I think that the second word 'is' is an OCR error and should be 'if' as in 'if we']
"But is we become abusive of one another in our discussion of the subject we will both arrive at the pearly gates only to find them bolted and barred against both of us"
Do you feel someone in this thread has been abusive ?
Possibly he speaks of the abuses inflicted on the SDA members for seeking the truth. Threats, Bullying, Disfellowship, ETC.Do you feel someone in this thread has been abusive ?
No, NOT in this thread but perhaps we can save it for some other threads?
Did find his closing remarks interesting: respect the other side even when your intent is to rip them to up - something we might want to remember when they turn on the debating section
[[It is a LONG report [nearly 40 pages] and so far I have just scanned it [Thanks to the person who posted it for yet another 2 month study I need to do] Have not found the Froom papers on line but I don't think I will need to research that part of the report - and Yes, it would be nice to have the ship load of shipping containers version of Logos when researching interesting 'stuff' (From some other thread on 'Logos 5')]]
[[It is a LONG report [nearly 40 pages]No Sir, That is not a LONG report. Desmond Ford penned a LONG report , in preparation for the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting in 1980...some 900 pages.[:O] If you are interested in this subject, It helps to know his theology. An SDA seminary student prepared a Reader's Digest version here:http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/desmondfordtheology.htm
P.S. Desmond Ford is one of the disfellowshipped members mentioned by Raymond Cottrell.
Oh. What a tangled web we weave !
No Sir, That is not a LONG report. Desmond Ford penned a LONG report , in preparation for the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting in 1980...some 900 pages.
If you are interested in this subject, It helps to know his theology. An SDA seminary student prepared a Reader's Digest version
If that summary is true to Ford’s writings then I can cross Ford off my list of ones that I need to examine.
On page two there is a table that is called an outline
1. We are judged individually as we accept or reject Christ
2. Only the wicked are judged, not the righteous
Number one implies that all are judged – some, the ones that accept Christ, are found not guilty or at least acquitted.
Number two clearly states that those that accept Christ are not judged – not even to be found not guilty or acquitted.
That does not compute! Contradictory statements! One says we all are - the other that only most are.
Good night Mr. Ford. Just saved myself the years it takes to deeply study a 900 page report by reading two lines of the summary.
Good night Mr. Ford.
I may have done you a disservice by directing you to a summary. Please understand that the SDA investigative judgment purportedly only affects the professed Christians, and the cleansing of the Heavenly Sanctuary was necessary to purge their confessed sins.The Wicked (in their minds) are not involved in it. I think if you did read the whole paper, you would see that he is saying that confessed / repented sins are remembered no more. (1John 1:9, Heb 8:12) Therefore, There are no sins to be cleansed from Heaven. Either they have not been confessed, or they have been atoned for. No sins are stored in Heaven, as they were in the earthly Sanctuary. There was never a need to cleanse the Heavenly sanctuary. An important side note is that (according to the Sanctuary doctrine) none of this happened until 1844, When Christ was allowed into the Most Holy Place to start the second phase of his atonement.
I certainly do not uphold all of Mr Ford's theology, but I fear the outline is too black and white, and most won't read his entire paper. So, Again, I apologize if I have helped to distort the point he was making by referring you to a summary. My point is that Mr Ford devoted nearly 30 years to God...through the SDA organization, then was disfellowshipped for pointing out unsupportable doctrines.
No Sir, That is not a LONG report. Desmond Ford penned a LONG report , in preparation for the Glacier View Sanctuary Review Committee meeting in 1980...some 900 pages.
If that summary is true to Ford’s writings then I can cross Ford off my list of ones that I need to examine.
Good night Mr. Ford. Just saved myself the years it takes to deeply study a 900 page report by reading two lines of the summary.
Re: Desmond Ford
The other link took us to an Official SDA site [the group that kicked him out] and they might not be a fair judge of Mr. Ford. At [http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive11-15/11-2ford.pdf] I found his own words – Paragraph ten shows that Ford believes it [the Investigative judgment] but states that it cannot be proved directly from Scripture. And he gets kicked out. How many ‘other heretics’ got ‘executed’ over semantics? [(Numbers) are to pages in his 900 page report] - I now have a better opinion of Mr. Ford.
The concept of an investigative judgment was proposed about 13 years after Adventists had adopted the idea of a heavenly sanctuary; it was not an original part of that concept (293). The Bible does not teach an investigative judgment as we proclaim it (651). Thus, I believe that "our use of sanctuary imagery to support the investigative judgment concept has been faulty" (651). It is a metaphorical concept that points to reality but is not reality itself (624). Ellen White's description of it is not stated in literal terms (626). In Daniel, judgment has to do with unbelievers, not believers (355ff). However, I agree that "Seventh-day Adventists have been right in seeing the theme of judgment in Daniel 8:14" (367), for "the fact that Scripture clearly teaches two resurrections with only the righteous coming up in the first, demands that their destiny be settled prior to Christ's coming, for they are released from the house of death with immortal bodies" (650). I further affirm that "at every point in His intercession, Christ knows whether professed believers are truly abiding in Him" (477), that "the professed Christian must stand before the judgment bar of God" (476), and that men are being judged now (523).
[[Sorry for taking so long to reply but investigations take time. [especially when you are tiring to find truth on the Internet] He 'truly' believes what his Church teaches [as stated above] and he still gets kicked out - fun.]]
I now have a better opinion of Mr. Ford.Praise God that you took time to actually read what he said. Again, I apologize if I muddied the water...or (initially) colored your perception with my comments.
May God bless your studies.
I just finished a study of Daniel and I used the several that are avalible in Logos.
Daniel: An Expository Commentary by H. A. Ironside
Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation by John F. Walvoord
The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook by John F. Walvoord
The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events by Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum
Arnold Fruchtenbaum has some good stuff. I noticed that he also has a detailed paper on the Seventy Seven's of Daniel in his Logo's "Messianic Bible Study Collection".
Ernest Lucas' commentary on Daniel was great!
"This series seeks to do the same (ably apply understanding of past events to contemporary society), keeping one foot firmly planted in the universe of the original text and the other in that of the target audience, which consists of preachers, teachers and students of the Bible."
Great format for what your searching for.
Agreed about Walvoord.
He would be considered a "praeterist/futurist", meaning, premillenial with a twist of symbolisms thrown in for good measure.
Ironside is good as well.