Daniel

I really was not impressed with this commentary. To begin with, the commentary takes a rather critical-liberal view of authorship and dating which surprised me given the solidly evangelical and conservative editors like Daniel Block and Stephen Dempster. Widder rejects a 6th century date, suggests “vaticinium ex eventu” prophecy (prophecy "after the fact" i.e. not prophecy in any real sense of the word) might be used, and readily admits of significant historical errors in the book. In the same vein, she argues for the "Greek view" of Dan. 2 & 7 which doesn't see Rome mentioned at all as the 4th kingdom. She also argues (quite unconvincingly) the "stone" of Dan. 2:45 refers to the people of God, not the Messiah which was a novel view to me. The "70 weeks" of Dan. 9:24 are to be interpreted symbolically, the Messiah in Dan. 9:25 & 26 refers to the high priests Joshua and Onias III, and pretty much everything was fulfilled in the 2nd century BC. I certainly disagree with these views and conclusions, but furthermore, I just didn't find the main body of the commentary all that compelling. There simply weren't many "exegetical gems" that make a great commentary. Not recommended for conservative evangelical pastors or students of God's Word... although if that doesn't describe you, maybe this is right up your alley!