Both on his own blog as well as the aomin site, Jamin Hubner plugged recent Gareth Cockerill’s commentary on Hebrews. I find that a little strange inasmuch as Cockerill is Arminian.
I’m not suggesting that we should never read Arminian commentaries. Arminian scholars can produce fine exegesis. And it’s important to know how they interpret their prooftexts.
Nevertheless, the apostasy passages Hebrews are the Arminian locus classicus against the perseverance of the saints. What’s more, those passages are a controlling feature of Hebrews. How you interpret those passages will impact your general reading of Hebrews. So I wouldn’t recommend Cockerill’s commentary as a “great” exegetical “resource.” And you don’t have to buy a whole commentary to find out how he deals with the apostasy passages. He contributed to one of the Four Views series on that very topic.
Surely there are better available commentaries on Hebrews, such as Peter O’Brien’s 2010 commentary. Moreover, Buist Fanning, Douglas Moo, and D. A. Carson all have commentaries on Hebrews in the pipeline which ought to be preferable to Cockerill’s.