When I was in middle school, I tried to make pancakes with funfetti cake mix rather than regular pancake mix. The result was similar to this book: It was fine, but the form didn’t always fit the content.
Significant portions served more as a “Who’s Who” of Premillennialism (which was interesting but not always compelling). I felt a tension between the authors’ calls to put the ultimate weight of argument with exegesis and their disposition to list theologians and their credentials behind specific views. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, but felt awkward.
There’s a fair bit of inside baseball here—you likely need to have a moderate grasp of the different systems in order to fully appreciate the analyses given. That’s fine, but, again, the form/structure of the essays often seemed to obfuscate rather than clarify the arguments.
Thematic Premillennialism, which is often neglected, was developed but, again, it wasn’t until toward the end of the chapter that it was more clearly defined.
Overall, I found the work helpful. It helps to build out a bibliography for premillennialism and to clarify the diversities of premillennialisms. If you’ve read the chapters in a major systematic theology on the Millennium and you’re curious, this would be a fine book to engage with.