It should not be surprising that out of the 77 titles listed in bestcommentaries.com under the book of Daniel, Thomas Howe’s work is not one of them. “Daniel in the Preterists’ Den” is not a Biblical commentary in the conventional sense. It is, rather, more like Howe’s extended book reports compiled under a provocative heading. One who stumbles upon this book could be excused for thinking otherwise by overlooking Howe’s subtitle: “A Critical Look at Preterist Interpretations of Daniel”.

Although peddled in a somewhat self-congratulating way how the first six chapters of Daniel provide “the framework into which the later prophecies fit”; and bemoaning the fact that few others, especially Preterists, provide commentaries covering the whole book of Daniel, Howe dispensed with the first six chapters in fewer than 130 pages after an introduction. That is less than one fifth of the entire length of the book. The major portion of the book is devoted to those passages in the last six chapters of Daniel, which Howe sees as more controversial and contain issues that divide Preterists and Futurists.

Little new insight can be gained if any potential reader is already familiar with Futurists’ (especially dispensationalists’) arguments, for Howe’s intent is apparently not on offering a careful exegesis of the text. The majority of pages of this doorstop of a work focus on refutations against preterist commentarians. Its literary shrapnel is directed towards the works of Philip Mauro, John S. Evans, John Noē, Kenneth Gentry, and to lesser extent Ernest Lucas’s. In the process, Stephen Miller, Dwight Pentecost, and John Walvoord are summoned in support. So the camps are noticeably identified and the battle line is drawn.

One consistent criticism Howe lobs against the preterists is their interpretative approaches based on presupposed eschatological framework. After examining his polemical writing and extracting his own interpretations from the pages, especially in the last concluding chapter, it is clear that Howe, as he would readily admit (pg. 33), is by no means free from the charge of biased theological commitment. In addition, one would be aghast by some commentarians’ sloppy mixing of pure conjectures with exegesis, as exemplified by the suggestions that at the dawn of the millennial kingdom (preconceived eschatological framework granted), 30 days are required for the judgement to elapse, and another 45 days are needed for the millennial king to establish governance (pg. 674f.). Such hermeneutical acrobatics border on absurdity.

A prophetic reading of the book of Daniel has a long history, probably began not much later than its initial composition. Such approach is no doubt legitimate as is supported by the text that says: “... what is to happen to your people in the latter days …” (10:14). However, some interpreters have throughout the centuries pursued such method to the extreme as to approach the Danielic messages merely through the predictive lens. Many “run to and fro”, toil in numbers and days counting to no edifying avail. The forsaking of parenetic value in such an important book as Daniel can only be to the detriment of many faithful.