In many ways this is a very helpful and thorough commentary. He does an excellent job of translating each passage and then explains the exegesis of the passage. After each exegesis portion, he has an exposition that explains what the text says and means. The exposition sections of the book are well worth any Christian readers time.
It seems that the average church member was not his target audience. The writing is very scholarly with a great deal of citations. In every passage, he describes and engages differing interpretations. This can make the writing difficult to follow. To complicate it further, he discusses aspects of Hebrew grammar but does not use Hebrew letters or words. Instead, he uses English words with a litany of accents above them. Thus, unless you know all the accents, knowledge of the Hebrew language, much less English, will not help you determine what word he is referring to.
There are a couple of areas of concern with this work. First, he advocates for "inferior" and "superior" revelation: "The difference is important in interpreting Holy Scripture. Inferior forms of revelation, such as the riddle-like visions of the prophets in contrast to the clear, face-to-face encounters of God with Moses, carry less weight than superior forms of revelation..." (p. 43) If his distinction is valid, then who determines which books of the canon are "inferior" and which are "superior"? Does this distinction apply to other doctrines that are not related to eschatology? When Micah, through a vision, said the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, was that unclear and riddle-like? Why would he make such a distinction? Because he wants to avoid a specific theological conclusion.
"Micah's prophecies regarding the Messianic Age must be interpreted according to the lucid teachings of the NT, which excludes the symbolic book of Revelation, and not according to a premillennial model, which is built on OT prophecy and apocalyptic literature instead of on the plain teachings of Christ and his apostles." (p. 43) Problem: the OT is the words of Jesus and is just as clear as any NT book. The book of Revelation is also inspired of God and is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16 NASB) If the text teaches a literal return of Jesus Christ after which a literal and physical kingdom is established, then that should be our conclusion. We should not alter our interpretive method to avoid a theological conclusion.