I just received this book yesterday for free while attending the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) Annual Meeting! I have given this commentary on the Gospel of Matthew 5 stars because of its clear and original interpretations. In my research for my PhD dissertation concerning Matt 20:20–23, I have surveyed over 400 books and commentaries from the 2nd century through the present era. I have found that many commentaries are vague in their interpretation and say the same thing as other modern commentaries. Cooper does a great job of explaining the details of Matt 20:20–23 and placing it in the context of the book of Matthew and the OT. While I have not surveyed the entire commentary for its theological soundness, this commentary was helpful for my research on Matt 20:20–23. Specifically helpful is Cooper's originality in interpreting the role of James' and John's mother asking for the positions of honor. On page 287, he writes, “Like the Canaanite woman in 15:25, she kneels down in worship as she asks something of Jesus (verse 20). Jesus as encouraged the disciples to be those who freely ask of things from their Father (7:7–12), so making bold requests like this one is certainly not a bad thing in itself.” I label this interpretation "original" because it is the minority view in modern and ancient interpretation, but I am convinced it is correct. Many modern scholars see the question as bad in itself, and Cooper joins the small group of 6 other interpreters throughout the history of interpretation (that I could find) that interpret the mother bowing in worship (Bengel, Nolland, Bruner, Turner, Leim, and Quarles). While Cooper doesn't give a detailed argument for this position, I give many pieces of evidence to support this claim in my dissertation. I will point out, however, is unoriginality in another section, Matt 20:20–23, in which he argues that the left and right positions point to the thieves on the left and right of Jesus on the cross in Matt 27. This interpretation has become very popular in modern commentaries but was only first introduced (of which I could find) by J. P. Lange in 1844–47 in his commentary on Matthew. While there is similar language between the two pericopes, the connection is superficial and does not make sense in the context of Matt 20:20-23. Nevertheless, one should consider picking up this commentary and seeing what other treasures it might have in store. Josh Engen - PhD student, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary