Zdravko Stefanovic is professor of Old Testament languages and biblical studies at Walla Walla University. His commentary on the Book of Daniel is an in-depth study of the Hebrew and Aramaic text of Daniel, along the lines of the Anchor Bible Commentary on Daniel, i.e., each text passage is followed by textual notes and a commentary.” As is common to many scholarly commentaries, the lengthy introduction (30 pages) deals with such topics as authorship, the literary features, and the purpose of the book. In addition, Stefanovic has two chapters which give a general overview of Daniel 2-6 and 7-12 respectively.

This commentary majors on the exegesis of the original text, and the notes provide some helpful insights, but it is rather weak when it comes to the interpretation and explanation of the historical fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecies. Hence, not only does he say little about the pre-advent judgment in Daniel 7 and the cleansing of the sanctuary in Daniel 8, but several interpretations or the lack thereof will be of concern to Adventist readers. For example:

1. On page 237, Stefanovic claims that “One cannot comprehend Daniel’s prophetic messages without constant reference to the messages of the other biblical prophets, to which they are closely related.” Unfortunately, he does not provide any examples, but given the fact that Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. are classical prophets dealing primarily with the nation of Israel whereas Daniel is an apocalyptic prophet dealing primarily with cosmic, apocalyptic, and worldwide issues, one wonders in what sense they are “closely related.”

2. From an Adventist point of view, the manuscript suffers from a distinct lack of a thorough and scholarly defense of the historicist interpretation of Daniel. For example, the year-day principle is mentioned (pp. 282, 310) and applied, but nowhere is there a clear explanation and defense of it. The references to Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 (p. 282) are not going to convince many readers that the year-day principle is a biblical principle. In view of the fact that outside of the Adventist Church hardly anyone still uses this principle of prophetic interpretation, it should have received a vigorous defense in this book which will be read by Adventists and non-Adventists alike. Desmond Ford in his 1978 Daniel commentary has a good defense of the year-day principle in appendix F and William Shea spent more than 40 pages in his book Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation on the year-day principle. A reference to these sources would have been helpful.

3. In regard to the judgment scene in Daniel 7:9-14 Stefanovic writes, “The event described here in Daniel 7 closely resembles what Revelation 5 presents as the inauguration of Jesus Christ as King of the universe. Both chapters end with the universal worship of the Divine Person. Ephesians 1:19b-22 seems to allude to this same event in salvation history” (pp. 269, 270). If Daniel 7:9-14 refers to the same event as Ephesians 1 and Revelation 5, then the judgment in Daniel 7:9-14 began in A.D. 31 and not in 1844. Although Daniel 7 does not provide a precise date for the judgment, verses 21-26 provide a general idea as to when the judgment is to take place. It follows the domination of the little horn over the saints during the 1260 years which ended in 1798. On the basis of Daniel 8:14 Seventh-day Adventists believe that it began in 1844 and not in A.D. 31.

4. On page 267, Stefanovic writes, “The context of this vision of Daniel 7 suggests that the primary focus of God’s judgment concerns ‘the power realities— kingdoms and rulers who do as they please.’” A few pages further on he says, “Thus, the saints are not the object, but rather the beneficiaries of this judgment” (p. 272). The Hebrew text says “judgment was given in favor of the saints.” If a judgment is rendered in favor of the saints then they themselves must also have been the object and not just the beneficiary of these court proceedings. Stephen Miller in The New American Commentary says the decision of the court in 7:22 “is that the horn is worthy of punishment (guilty), but the saints are worthy of blessing (innocent).” If they are declared worthy of blessing an investigation of their status must have taken place in the judgment. This is in harmony with the Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the “investigative” or “pre-Advent” judgment in Daniel 7.

Overall, the reader will find many new insights in the linguistic notes and in the “application in personal life” sections. Some of the commentary sections are very good, others less so. The Adventist interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel is found primarily in the summaries of the views of William Shea, Mervin Maxwell, and Jacques Doukhan. Finally, a word has to be said about the physical appearance of the book. Pacific Press is to be congratulated; it has done an outstanding job in the production of the book. The layout, the cover and the general appearance of the book are excellent.