Daniel Commentary Recommendations

C Devin ChaulkUser: "C Devin Chaulk"
C Devin Chaulk
✭✭
Updated by Jason Stone (Logos)

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! Wink

Comments

Sort by:
1 - 3 of 31
    User: "Evan Boardman"
    Evan Boardman
    ✭✭

    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.[:@]

    User: "Josh"
    Josh
    ✭✭✭

    A quick Google search reveals that I am not good at Google searching. I was unable to find a single commentary that fits your description.

    C Devin ChaulkUser: "C Devin Chaulk"
    C Devin Chaulk
    ✭✭
    OP

    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!

    User: "Josh"
    Josh
    ✭✭✭

    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

    C Devin ChaulkUser: "C Devin Chaulk"
    C Devin Chaulk
    ✭✭
    OP

    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.

    User: "Lynden O. Williams"
    Lynden O. Williams

    See if you can get a hold Uriah's Smith book on Daniel.

    Mission: To serve God as He desires.

    User: "Andy Tucker"
    Andy Tucker
    ✭✭

    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.

     

    User: "Ralph Hale"
    Ralph Hale
    ✭✭

    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. 

    User: "Andy Tucker"
    Andy Tucker
    ✭✭

    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. 

    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.

    http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/1844rc.htm

    User: "David Ames"
    David Ames
    ✭✭✭

    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"

    User: "Andy Tucker"
    Andy Tucker
    ✭✭

    Do you feel someone in this thread has been abusive ?

    User: "David Ames"
    David Ames
    ✭✭✭

    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')]]

    User: "Ralph Hale"
    Ralph Hale
    ✭✭

    [[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 !

    User: "Gene Lewis"
    Gene Lewis
    ✭✭

    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

    User: "Josh"
    Josh
    ✭✭✭

    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".

    User: "Christopher Pokorny"
    Christopher Pokorny
    ✭✭

    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. 

     

    User: "Christopher Pokorny"
    Christopher Pokorny
    ✭✭

    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.  


    http://www.amazon.com/Daniel-Apollos-Old-Testament-Commentary/dp/0830825193/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1333326364&sr=8-2

     

Quick Links