This is the best of the three commentaries I have read in the past few weeks on the book of Daniel. That does not mean that I completely agree with all Davis' conclusions, but in most cases he offers at least discussion of some of the common alternative conclusions. His historical context to both Daniel's life and the time periods covered by the prophecies is excellent. He offers some application - in my opinion about the right amount for a subject like this one.
Footnotes are many and they are published on the same page as the text they reference. This is good for me because one of the few irritations I have with his style is that some footnotes, too many, add to the discussion even if only as a parenthesis. This is as opposed to only documenting sources and perhaps commenting about what is contained in the source. I find it slightly irritating because it means I have to check every footnote so as not to miss important discussion. There are several instances where I found the discussion in the footnote as enlightening as the main text. I say it is good that it is on the same page because in books where the footnotes are at the end of the chapter or entire book, I would miss such discussions entirely. However, usually authors who use that style keep their discussions within the main text.
Davis offers little discussion of the main schools regarding the timing of Christ's Second Coming such as Premillennial and Amillennial. I don't remember any and didn't put any in my notes. Likewise, he is cautious about offering any definitive conclusions bearing on that timing. The most obvious place for such discussion would be regarding Daniel 9:24-27, the Seventy Weeks. Davis briefly mentions those who have assigned specific weeks to specific historical times, but offers instead that he sees the three major divisions (7, 42, 1) as schematic or relative periods of time, not literal as implied by the numbers. On the other hand, Davis does see many of the prophetic sections as referring to a distant future, or end time. He does not seem to support the idea that the church (representing the stone cut out without human hands) defeats the evil kingdom gradually over time.
Davis style is somewhat light for an exegetical commentary. There is a tiny bit of sass. Not irreverent, but contemporary. Also, he is much more humble than some commentators whom I have read. Some, especially referring to end times, seem dogmatic. Some barely treat alternative views while some openly scoff at them. Davis often begins a section admitting the inherent difficulties. He offers alternative views and sometimes avoids arriving definitively at the "correct" one. I like this mentality because I find it hard to believe that one author, short of a vision from God at the same level as Daniel's, can be dogmatic about much of anything on this subject. (And I also believe that the Bible warns against "adding" to it, meaning that new revelation is closed in that regard. However, I must be careful not to limit God, and I have heard credible stories of personal visions especially in areas completely cut off from the Gospel. I digress.)
This is not a long book. Davis does not begin each section with the actual biblical text, except in a very few places. Some verses are not quoted in entirety at all. There is no index either by subject or verse.
In my first pass at this review, I neglected to address Davis' handling of an issue that one can't ignore with the book of Daniel. Many critics say that this Biblical book cannot have been written in the 6th century BC as one would assume from a plain reading. The primary motive of the critics is that Daniel is too accurate in prophetic details. Davis is clear and detailed in his defense of the 6th century writing. I tend to gloss over that issue in my mind because if you don't accept the plain reading that the Daniel who was a prominent figure in Babylon received these visions at that time, then the Bible is not only not inherent, but it contains significant falsehoods. I would have no interest in the entirety in that case. In short, I take it as a matter of faith, but I am happy to have at my disposal facts and arguments to counter such criticisms.
I am probably not finished referencing portions of this book.