The book of Daniel is at the same time one of the most recognized and least known books of the Bible. Narrative accounts in the first half of the book, such as the fiery furnace and Daniel in the lions’ den, are known even by children; the second half of the book is often unknown even to mature Christians. Undoubtedly, the visions that comprise the second half of the book are daunting and are the source of no small amount of debate. However, Jesus references the book of Daniel frequently (His self-designation as The Son of Man is a reference to the book of Daniel) and the book of Revelation makes extensive use of the book of Daniel. Since the New Testament is so full of references to Daniel, it is worth acquiring at least a basic understanding of what Daniel says.
First, Be Aware of Problem Interpretations
The Critical View
Two problem-interpretations of Daniel need to be known. The first is that of critical scholars. Unless a scholar is explicitly conservative, chances are they will argue that the narratives of Daniel are made up and the visions of Daniel are after-the-fact “prophecies” related to the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Unfortuntely, even some otherwise-conservative scholars have adopted at least some of the critical view. The critical view is completely at odds with how the Bible presents the book of Daniel.
Dispensationalism
The second problem-interpretation is that of dispensationalists, who apply the framework of dispensationalism to the visions of Daniel. Among other problems, dispensationalism draws a hard line between Israel and the Church. Instead of viewing all those who believe in Christ as true Israel (see especially Romans 2:25-29, Galatians 3:23-29, and Ephesians 2:11-3:6), dispensationalism continues to see ethnic Israel as God’s special people who are a separate entity from the Church. While I would prefer someone take a dispensational view over the critical view (the enemy of my enemy…), the dispensational view still warps how one understands the Bible as a whole.
Unfortunately, a large portion of modern commentaries is based on one of these two errors, so care must be taken when choosing a commentary to assist in understanding the book. It is not that there is no useful information in any of these commentaries, it is simply that we need to know the presuppositions of the authors in order to know the errors to be especially aware of.
Recommended Reading
If You Can Only Get One Commentary:
Daniel, by Andrew Steinmann, Concordia Commentary, 2008.
Not only is the commentary by Andrew Steinmann fantastic from start to finish, it also has what I think is the most compelling understanding of the visions in the second half of Daniel. Steinmann is unapologetic in his faith-based approach to Daniel and, refreshingly, pulls no punches when addressing the critical view of the book. Steinmann also includes several helpful excursus that dive into some key ideas and areas of debate. The commentary does include technical discussions of language and textual issues, but these are mostly grouped together at the beginning of each chapter and thus do not bog down the rest of the chapter.
This commentary and that by Joe Sprinkle are two of the best commentaries on Daniel that I’ve read, but I have to give Steinmann’s commentary the advantage based primarily on his explanation of the visions.
The commentary by Paul T. Butler, listed below as Best Non-Technical, has the same understanding of the prophecies as Steinmann. If you are just starting with Daniel and want some guidance, Butler would probably be a better place to start.
Runner Up:
Daniel, by Joe Sprinkle, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary Series, 2020.
Even though I disagree with some of Sprinkle’s interpretation of the visions, this is still a fantastic commentary. It is very well written and has excellent insights. The introductory material and defense of the traditional view of Daniel was exceptionally well done. I also like the format of the commentary and the focus on understanding how Daniel fits into the Bible as a whole (i.e., biblical theology). Sprinkle writes at a moderately technical level, but in a very engaging style. This commentary would be valuable for teachers and preachers, but may be a little too much for someone just getting acquainted with the book. I have been impressed with the Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary Series so far and this entry did not disappoint.
Best Non-Technical Commentary:
Daniel, by Paul T. Butler, Bible Study Textbook Series (available as pdf online)
The Bible Study Textbook Series was produced by College Press in the mid-20th century and are now out of print; however, College Press has made the series available for free in pdf. This commentary on Daniel is written at a non-technical level, but still covers the book very well. There are some excellent discussions of difficult texts, several helpful charts, and the format is easy to follow. I agree with Butler’s understanding of the visions (which is the same as Steinmann’s) and he does a good job explaining his position in an easily understood way. If someone wants to gain a better understanding of Daniel without getting bogged down in technical minutiae, this commentary would be the perfect place to start.
Best Overview of the Various Schools of Interpretation
Pfandl, Gerhard. “Interpretations of the Kingdom of God in Daniel 2:44.” AUSS 34 (1996): 249- 268.
This journal article by Gerhard Pfandl gives a very helpful overview of the various historical and modern interpretations of the book of Daniel. If someone is going to start studying Daniel at an academic level, or if they want to better understand the interpretative landscape of Daniel, this is an excellent place to start.
Other Useful Commentaries:
(These commentaries all have the name Daniel, so I am only listing the author’s name)
- James Burton Coffman – This is a good introductory commentary written at a non-technical level. Coffman’s strength is that he summarizes the thoughts of several older commentaries (including Barnes) and does a good job avoiding excessive speculation. Coffman or Butler would be a good place to start, but I preferred Butler’s commentary. (Coffman’s commentary is available online)
- Albert Barnes – An older commentary, but still insightful. The debates surrounding Daniel have not changed in the past several hundred years. (Barnes’ commentray is available online)
- Myers, Pryor, and Rechtin (Truth For Today Commentary Series) – Designed to help preachers, but to be accessible to anyone, this is a very good commentary. It is still non-technical, but has more meat than the commentary by Butler. I disagree with some of the interpretations of the visions, but this is still a good commentary.
- E.J. Young – A classic commentary, Young is known for his able defense of the traditional view of Daniel. I disagree with some of Young’s interpretations of the visions, but his extended defense of Rome as the fourth kingdom is well done.
Studies in the Bible 