First off, this commentary is from 1973, not 2008 as the date on Amazon says. A quick click on the "Read Me" button will verify the copyright date. All Tyndale OT commentaries are listed as "2008" for some reason (possibly reflecting the most recent printing with new cover styles?).
I read this commentary in its entirety about 20 years ago, and over the years have used it as a reference. It is a fine, helpful, though short (by today's standards) commentary from a conservative perspective.
The reason I write this review, however, is to provide an alternative perspective to the January 5, 2005 review of this commentary above that states:
"Though this volume is in the Tyndale series, don't mistake it for a conservative commentary. It has all the signs of liberal conclusions drawn by rationalist scholarship."
This is a most unfortunate assessment, and it is not accurate. Cole's commentary is quite consistent with the rest of the Tyndale series. He accepts the historicity of the events of the Book of Exodus, and pretty much only conservative scholars do that. The Jan 2005 reviewer must not be aware that conservative scholars recognize that dating the Exodus (either about 1440 BC or about 1250 BC) is a very tricky and uncertain endeavor. Conservative scholars are divided on this issue, and few would state their case with any certainty. I suspect this reviewer takes issue with the fact that 1 Kings 6:1 refers to the time from the Exodus to the building of the temple as 480 years. But even conservatives recognize that this could be either a precise date or a rounded figure representing 12 generations. The Bible uses rounding, just like other literature - that's how language often works. We must be careful not to decide ahead of time what kind of language conventions the Bible can or cannot use. Such an ahead-of-time restriction on the Bible would itself be rationalistic. One of the stalwart defenders of the reliability of the OT, R. K. Harrison, argues for the 1250ish date of the Exodus. By contrast, Gleason Archer argues for a 1445 date, but takes the other date seriously and builds his argument on data and evidence and not on considering those holding the other view as "rationalistic."
It is also most unfortunate that the Jan 2005 reviewer misrepresented Cole in order to support his belief that Cole's commentary is not "conservative." He says: "Furthermore, he [Cole] thinks that the "sea of reeds" the children of Israel crossed was dried overnight by an east wind, thus being only a few inches deep (see pp. 121-122). Of course, he fails to mention how the Egyptians could have drowned in a few inches of water."
The problem with this is: 1) the Bible, not Cole, claims that the Sea of Reeds dried overnight via a strong East wind (Exodus 14:21). This reviewer is taking issue with the Bible, not with Cole; 2) When he says "thus being only a few inches deep," he's not quoting the Bible nor Cole. I have no idea where the reviewer got this "a few inches deep" part. He certainly did not get it from Cole's commentary, but he presents it as if Cole said or implied this, which he did not. The reviewer concludes this with, "Of course, he [Cole] fails to to mention how the Egyptians could have drowned in a few inches of water." Of course Cole fails to mention it because the reviewer made that part up! How could Cole possibly respond to that?
I don't mean to disrespect this reviewer as I'm sure he is concerned with commentators who misrepresent the Scriptures. However, in his zeal, he completely misrepresented this commentary. Like it or not, Cole's commentary on Exodus is quite conservative and accepts the historical reality of the events portrayed in Exodus.
I just felt that I could not allow this misrepresentation of this fine commentary to affect potential buyers or readers.