It is a well written commentary. Keck makes some really brilliant points. Keck assumes, without proof or even strong evidence, divine exhaustive foreknowledge. This assumption clouds Keck's exegesis in a few places. Keck is what I perceive to be a hardcore Arminian. It probably would help to have a supplementary resource available for additional study. If you are using this commentary for a class preparation, you will not be adequately prepared to handle possible questions from participants. "Does Ephesians 1:4 really mean that God is outside of time? Can you defend the notion that God is outside of time?" Maybe he doesn't defend it very aggressively because it is generally assumed... or perhaps the position cannot be defended.