What do you think?
Rate this book
Daniel Unplugged: A Commentary & Translation
Daniel is one of the most complicated books in the Bible.Being a self-proclaimed “Daniel addict,” theologian Samuel M. Frost uses decades of study in Scripture, including studies in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to break down this complex, yet important book of the Bible. Full of symbols and imagery often misinterpreted, misappropriated, and misapplied, Daniel needs to be simplified as much as possible.With a simple, straightforward approach, and using his own easily accessible translation and personal commentary notes, Frost presents Daniel in its context so modern readers can grasp its purpose and enjoy its beauty without being bogged down by footnotes and cross references, all while growing in their knowledge of Scripture and faith in God.
276 pages, Kindle Edition
Published September 28, 2021
6 people are currently reading
2 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
December 13, 2021
Thou Shalt Buy This Book!
Samuel Frost has absolutely has changed my previous perspective on the book of Daniel in this work. If you honestly think you have a grip on the book of Daniel, this work may shake your current beliefs to the maximum and offer the Occam's Razor you did not think was possible. Though there are a few typos here and there in the book with constant repetition of what he previously said (which I personally appreciate because I'm a slow learner and need repetition whereas some people are bothered by it), it does not take away from the force and power this work has nor the encouragement one receives from it. I have indeed had an absolute paradigm shift in my thinking for the better, and I plan on giving this book away to many friends and the Mormons alike as positive Christian literature (heck, it actually challenges the Mormons' beliefs in many respects without outright mentioning them!). The book of Daniel will get unplugged if you read Frost's commentary. Thou shalt buy this book!
Samuel Frost has absolutely has changed my previous perspective on the book of Daniel in this work. If you honestly think you have a grip on the book of Daniel, this work may shake your current beliefs to the maximum and offer the Occam's Razor you did not think was possible. Though there are a few typos here and there in the book with constant repetition of what he previously said (which I personally appreciate because I'm a slow learner and need repetition whereas some people are bothered by it), it does not take away from the force and power this work has nor the encouragement one receives from it. I have indeed had an absolute paradigm shift in my thinking for the better, and I plan on giving this book away to many friends and the Mormons alike as positive Christian literature (heck, it actually challenges the Mormons' beliefs in many respects without outright mentioning them!). The book of Daniel will get unplugged if you read Frost's commentary. Thou shalt buy this book!
May 14, 2025
When Sam Frost asked me to read his book on Daniel, I wasn’t exactly jumping up and down. Although I was delighted for an opportunity to use my newly purchased commentary on Daniel by John Collins as a reference work, I know that Frost is a conservative scholar, and I was expecting that he would follow the same tired line that conservative commentators follow. I was pleasantly surprised that for the most part he did not. He does not see a prediction of the birth of Christ in Daniel 9, nor does he think the fourth beast is Rome, nor does he see a prediction of Antichrist in Daniel 11.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have serious disagreements with Frost. I cannot accept that the court tales of the first six chapters of Daniel are historical, any more than I can accept that Esther is historical. Like Esther, the court tales of Daniel are riddled with exaggerations (a furnace heated seven times hotter, 122 men together with their families thrown into a lions den!) Thus the seven times that pass over Nebuchadnezzar must be interpreted as years (contra Frost). Just as, contra Frost, the time, times, and half a time in Daniel 7.25 refer to about three and a half years ( cf. 8.14 [2300 evenings and mornings], 12.11 [1290 days], 12.12 [1335 days], Collins 322), the times in Daniel 4 must refer to years. The reason Frost must reject that the times in Daniel 4 refer to years is because it would be historical nonsense. Nevertheless some conservative scholars (most?) accept that Nebuchadnezzar was away from his throne for seven years (e.g., The MacArthur Study Bible p. 1208).
As far as the second half of the Daniel, Frost accepts as historical the commencement of the 70 weeks in 605 BC based on Daniel 1.1, claiming that "There is no error proven in them as some would speculate." Collins disagrees: "The statement of Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign cannot be reconciled with any plausible reconstruction of the course of events.(Collins 130)." This is where I would have liked to have seen footnotes as to why Frost accepts this date as historical. Perhaps it is based solely on Daniel 1.1? To his credit, Frost also dates the letter in Jeremiah in Jeremiah 29 to 605 BC, which some scholars believe is the decree to rebuild Jerusalem referenced in Daniel 9, and the start of the 7 week and 62 week periods referenced there. Frost agrees with critical scholars here that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem must have been a divine decree and not the decree of some pagan king. But there is no particular reason that I see to date the letter of Jeremiah to 605 other than to reconcile it with Daniel 1. The New Oxford Annotated Bible gives no date (1005-6). MacArthur dates it to sometime after 597 BC (MacArthur Study Bible 1079).
What I found the most interesting part of the book was Frost's interpretation of the four kingdoms schema (Frost avoids the term "kingdoms" in favor of the term "dominions".) Contrary to any interpretation I have seen before, Frost declares that the four dominions of chapter 2 are different from the four dominions of chapter 7. Frost believes that the four dominions in chapter 2 are different Babylonian rulers and the four dominions in chapter are the four Diadochi. This seems unlikely to me. There are many problems I could point out but I will limit myself to one because I found it the most interesting. Collins follows many translations when he translates the mingling of the clay and iron in 2.43 as "they will mingle in marriage." He further comments that most commentators see a reference to one or another interdynastic marriage between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (Collins 170). Frost translates more literally, "they mix in an offspring of a man." This causes problems and Frost admits that he find it puzzling. Collins translation and interpretation make much more sense. Thus the legs of iron represent the Grecian/Seleucid empire and not a Babylonian king.
Finally I was curious as to how Frost would handle the final verses of chapter 11 which critical scholars consider to be failed prophecy. The New Oxford Annotated Bible says this concerning these verses:
11.40-45 Predictions that Ptolemy will provoke another war with disastrous results so that Antiochus will conquer Libya to the west of Egypt and Ethiopia to the south, but on the way back will perish somewhere along the coastal route. None of these predictions was fulfilled. The New Oxford Annotated Bible 1146
Conservative scholars generally admit that these verses were not fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. For example MacArthur believes that in verses 36-45 we have skipped ahead in time to the time of the Antichrist and that these verses are yet to be fulfilled (MacArthur Study Bible 1222). Frost, to his credit, rejects this sketchy hypothesis and instead deals with all these problems by saying that these verses were indeed fulfilled in history. As regards v. 40 he says "It is often thought, indeed assumed, that the words here predict a third invasion of Antiochus IV upon the region of Egypt." However "These terms have been used in 11.10 concerning the campaign of the King of the Negev … This is simply repeating what had already been said." (I find it strange that the discourse here would double back on itself. This looks like a fresh prediction to me.)
Next he denies that the language of the Hebrew says that Antiochus will conquer Libya and Ethiopia.
Concerning the prediction of Antiochus's demise in v 45, most translations say something like "He shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with no one to help him." (11.45 ESV). Most take this as a prediction that Antiochus will meet his end somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and Jerusalem. However Frost translates: "between seas towards a mountain of beauty of holiness," and comments, "That is, somewhere 'between the seas' (unknown) with his tents pitched in the direction of the west." Frost’s suggestion is followed by few translations (but see the NET Bible). Frost makes much of the fact that "seas" here is plural in the Masoretic text. Yet Charles explains the plural "seas" as a poetic plural for the Mediterranean (Charles, 322. Cf. the plural in Judges 5.17; Deuteronomy 33.19, Collins 389)
I thought the generally literal translation of Daniel was the best feature of the book. I prefer my translations to be more literal rather than less literal. The biggest downside was that there were no verse numbers in the translation (however the bibliography was excellent). This made it a little tricky to track down some verses, such as in 2.43 where Frost's translation differed significantly from Collins's.
That doesn’t mean that I don’t have serious disagreements with Frost. I cannot accept that the court tales of the first six chapters of Daniel are historical, any more than I can accept that Esther is historical. Like Esther, the court tales of Daniel are riddled with exaggerations (a furnace heated seven times hotter, 122 men together with their families thrown into a lions den!) Thus the seven times that pass over Nebuchadnezzar must be interpreted as years (contra Frost). Just as, contra Frost, the time, times, and half a time in Daniel 7.25 refer to about three and a half years ( cf. 8.14 [2300 evenings and mornings], 12.11 [1290 days], 12.12 [1335 days], Collins 322), the times in Daniel 4 must refer to years. The reason Frost must reject that the times in Daniel 4 refer to years is because it would be historical nonsense. Nevertheless some conservative scholars (most?) accept that Nebuchadnezzar was away from his throne for seven years (e.g., The MacArthur Study Bible p. 1208).
As far as the second half of the Daniel, Frost accepts as historical the commencement of the 70 weeks in 605 BC based on Daniel 1.1, claiming that "There is no error proven in them as some would speculate." Collins disagrees: "The statement of Daniel that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign cannot be reconciled with any plausible reconstruction of the course of events.(Collins 130)." This is where I would have liked to have seen footnotes as to why Frost accepts this date as historical. Perhaps it is based solely on Daniel 1.1? To his credit, Frost also dates the letter in Jeremiah in Jeremiah 29 to 605 BC, which some scholars believe is the decree to rebuild Jerusalem referenced in Daniel 9, and the start of the 7 week and 62 week periods referenced there. Frost agrees with critical scholars here that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem must have been a divine decree and not the decree of some pagan king. But there is no particular reason that I see to date the letter of Jeremiah to 605 other than to reconcile it with Daniel 1. The New Oxford Annotated Bible gives no date (1005-6). MacArthur dates it to sometime after 597 BC (MacArthur Study Bible 1079).
What I found the most interesting part of the book was Frost's interpretation of the four kingdoms schema (Frost avoids the term "kingdoms" in favor of the term "dominions".) Contrary to any interpretation I have seen before, Frost declares that the four dominions of chapter 2 are different from the four dominions of chapter 7. Frost believes that the four dominions in chapter 2 are different Babylonian rulers and the four dominions in chapter are the four Diadochi. This seems unlikely to me. There are many problems I could point out but I will limit myself to one because I found it the most interesting. Collins follows many translations when he translates the mingling of the clay and iron in 2.43 as "they will mingle in marriage." He further comments that most commentators see a reference to one or another interdynastic marriage between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (Collins 170). Frost translates more literally, "they mix in an offspring of a man." This causes problems and Frost admits that he find it puzzling. Collins translation and interpretation make much more sense. Thus the legs of iron represent the Grecian/Seleucid empire and not a Babylonian king.
Finally I was curious as to how Frost would handle the final verses of chapter 11 which critical scholars consider to be failed prophecy. The New Oxford Annotated Bible says this concerning these verses:
11.40-45 Predictions that Ptolemy will provoke another war with disastrous results so that Antiochus will conquer Libya to the west of Egypt and Ethiopia to the south, but on the way back will perish somewhere along the coastal route. None of these predictions was fulfilled. The New Oxford Annotated Bible 1146
Conservative scholars generally admit that these verses were not fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes. For example MacArthur believes that in verses 36-45 we have skipped ahead in time to the time of the Antichrist and that these verses are yet to be fulfilled (MacArthur Study Bible 1222). Frost, to his credit, rejects this sketchy hypothesis and instead deals with all these problems by saying that these verses were indeed fulfilled in history. As regards v. 40 he says "It is often thought, indeed assumed, that the words here predict a third invasion of Antiochus IV upon the region of Egypt." However "These terms have been used in 11.10 concerning the campaign of the King of the Negev … This is simply repeating what had already been said." (I find it strange that the discourse here would double back on itself. This looks like a fresh prediction to me.)
Next he denies that the language of the Hebrew says that Antiochus will conquer Libya and Ethiopia.
Concerning the prediction of Antiochus's demise in v 45, most translations say something like "He shall pitch his palatial tents between the sea and the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he shall come to his end, with no one to help him." (11.45 ESV). Most take this as a prediction that Antiochus will meet his end somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and Jerusalem. However Frost translates: "between seas towards a mountain of beauty of holiness," and comments, "That is, somewhere 'between the seas' (unknown) with his tents pitched in the direction of the west." Frost’s suggestion is followed by few translations (but see the NET Bible). Frost makes much of the fact that "seas" here is plural in the Masoretic text. Yet Charles explains the plural "seas" as a poetic plural for the Mediterranean (Charles, 322. Cf. the plural in Judges 5.17; Deuteronomy 33.19, Collins 389)
I thought the generally literal translation of Daniel was the best feature of the book. I prefer my translations to be more literal rather than less literal. The biggest downside was that there were no verse numbers in the translation (however the bibliography was excellent). This made it a little tricky to track down some verses, such as in 2.43 where Frost's translation differed significantly from Collins's.
July 24, 2023
Informative commentary on the book of Daniel with rich insights.
Whether or not we agree with the Author's position about the 'timings' of the prophecies of Daniel, the content is very informative and we don't get to those specific prophecies until the early end of the book.
Some great theological insights that are truly inspiring and good for spiritual reflection.
Thanks Sam.
Whether or not we agree with the Author's position about the 'timings' of the prophecies of Daniel, the content is very informative and we don't get to those specific prophecies until the early end of the book.
Some great theological insights that are truly inspiring and good for spiritual reflection.
Thanks Sam.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews