Caleb Lawson

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!

A remarkable commentary. Tanner's work is probably the most expansive and thorough commentary from a conservative evangelical viewpoint available. His introductory remarks on dating, authorship, and identifying "Darius the Mede" alone are excellent. He additionally has an extensive section detailing Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks. Throughout, I think he is quite fair to other viewpoints, but at the same time points out their flaws before presenting his own view which is always based on careful exegesis of the details of the text. Now, if you are Amillennial, you certainly won't agree with all of Tanner's conclusions, although I think you would be pressed to defend your argument in a better light. I believe Daniel in particular is one of the strongest arguments for a Premillennial interpretation of Rev. 20 and the fulfillment of God's kingdom promises, and I was only further strengthened in that belief by Tanner's work here. The only critique I can offer would be editorial in that some structural features of the book are not consistent (i.e. "Commentary" headings sometimes in bold, sometimes just in italics, etc.). Highly recommended if you are teaching/preaching through Daniel or if you just want a reliable guide to a difficult book.

Between O. Palmer Robertson and Richard D. Patterson, I've found this to be the most helpful.

So far, this is an incredible commentary on Amos, Jonah, & Micah. Close attention to the Hebrew text and wonderful exegetical observations to assist in preaching & teaching. Highly recommended

If there was one book to read or give someone on Biblical Theology it would probably be this one. An excellent introduction to some of the major themes of the Biblical narrative. The chapter on the temple and tabernacle alone is worth the purchase. Essentially, as the title suggests, Alexander uses Gen. 1-3 and Rev. 20-22 as a grid to frame the greater Biblical metanarrative and it is a joy to behold the beauty of Scripture revealed before your eyes. Excellent book!