Preterism and Replacement Theology: Part 3

Why Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland Call It a Serious Threat

Some Bible debates stay inside the classroom. This one does not.

On The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that preterism, especially when paired with replacement theology, doesn’t just reshape end-times charts. It changes how people read the Bible, how pastors preach, what seminaries teach, and even how leaders think about Israel and public policy.

They keep the tone light at times, but the warning is direct. When prophecy gets treated like flexible symbolism, hope gets pushed into the past, Israel gets pushed to the side, and confidence in a plain reading of Scripture starts to erode.

The show’s banter sets the tone, then the warning gets serious

Smith and Rowland open the episode the way longtime listeners expect, with jokes about pretend sponsors and the daily chaos of microphones, chair

s, cords, and timing. The running gag is “Sunglasses of America,” followed by a round of laughter about whether anything is really “only made in the USA.”

There’s also a quick Bible nod as they joke about being “sponsored by cord,” which turns into “One Accord,” a phrase they point out is straight from Scripture.

Under the humor is a clear point. This isn’t a topic you wrap up in one sitting. They return to a theme they’ve already been building, preterism (and its partial form) keeps showing up in more churches and schools, and it’s creating confusion for regular believers.

A few of their lines capture the mood:

• “Partial preterist is a preterist want-to-be.”
• “If you’re going to be a preterist, be a preterist.”
• “Don’t be partial about nothing.”

The laughter is real, but they’re not treating the issue as small. They see it as a growing teaching pipeline that is shaping the next generation of pastors.

A Bible college conversation that shows why this keeps spreading

Smith shares a recent lunch with a young missionary preacher, Blake Harvey, a graduate of Bethel Bible College. Smith describes him as a strong young man and says he hopes to bring him onto the podcast in the future.

The lunch conversation centers on preterism and partial preterism, because that’s what Harvey was taught in school. Smith says the college position was partial preterism, which he connects to amillennialism.

What stood out was not only the doctrine, but how it was handled in class. Students repeatedly asked why they weren’t being exposed to other ways of reading the same passages. The professor’s reply, as Smith tells it, was blunt: if he used other people’s definitions, he couldn’t teach what he believes. Smith and Rowland laugh at the logic, because it sounds like an admission that the class was built to protect a conclusion rather than test it.

Smith says this mindset is not limited to one stream of Christianity. He sees it across the board, including charismatic and Baptist training environments. In their view, the problem is not just what’s being taught, but the narrowing of what students are allowed to consider.

Then Smith makes a statement that he knows will draw reaction. He says he has more respect for a full preterist than a partial preterist, not because he agrees, but because at least full preterism is consistent. In his view, partial preterism often turns into internal disagreement, because partial preterists can’t agree on what is “partial” and what is still future.

Full preterism vs. partial preterism, what each one claims

Rowland gives clear working definitions, then Smith reacts to what those definitions do to the overall shape of Bible prophecy.

Full preterism, as Rowland explains it, teaches that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled around AD 70, centered on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. In that framework, major judgment passages in Revelation and Matthew 24 are treated as already completed events.

Partial preterism tries to avoid the obvious weaknesses of full preterism. It teaches that most prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but it tends to leave Revelation 20 through 22 as still future. Even then, Rowland notes that partial preterists do not always expect those chapters to be fulfilled in a straightforward, literal way.

That last point is where the hosts press hard. Smith argues that partial preterism often switches methods midstream. It allegorizes much of Revelation, then demands a different approach when it needs future content to remain. Rowland agrees and frames the issue as inconsistency. It becomes a system that can be adjusted to protect itself.

They also point out that partial preterism is common because many people sense that full preterism “doesn’t work,” yet they still want to avoid premillennialism. Smith summarizes it with a jab, but the point is serious: partial preterism often reads like an attempt to get the benefits of a past fulfillment view without paying the full logical cost.

They mention public voices they believe reflect partial preterist thinking, including Doug Wilson (whom Smith says he enjoys listening to preach, while still seeing dangers) and Tucker Carlson. Their concern is not personality-based. It’s what happens when a theology of Israel and prophecy spreads beyond the church world.

Why they see preterism as dangerous theology, not just a debate

Rowland lays out a major concern first. He says preterism often requires a denial of literal interpretation, especially in Revelation 4 through 19. He gives a common example: the beasts of Revelation 13 become symbols for Nero (AD 54 to 68), and the tribulation becomes a symbol for general persecution under Rome.

Smith and Rowland argue that this approach changes the rules of interpretation. In their view, Scripture should be taken literally unless the text signals a symbol. Rowland says symbols are not a license to invent meanings. The Bible often marks symbols with language such as “like” or “as it were.” When the text signals a symbol, the symbol still points to real meaning.

Smith adds a practical check. You can’t build allegory out of nothing. An allegory has to be drawn from something literal. Their complaint is that some allegorical approaches treat prophecy like clay, shaped to fit a preferred storyline.

They tie this to hope. Rowland says prophecy is not just information, it is part of Christian encouragement. Once a prophecy is given, you can see its “infancy” through history until it reaches fulfillment. For them, the clear marker of fulfillment is simple: Jesus returns. If you move that return into the past, you don’t just change a timeline. You weaken what Scripture calls the blessed hope.

The big story they say many systems forget, Genesis to Revelation

Smith frames the whole issue around what he believes was “on God’s mind” from the beginning. He points to a storyline that starts at creation and ends at the final restoration:

Smith says God is building toward a literal outcome. In his view, the New Jerusalem is not just a poetic image. It is a real city God will bring down to earth, and from there God will rule and reign forever. They connect that to the kingdom theme, Jesus ruling in a real, promised way.

Smith also responds to a question he says he has been asked: if Jesus rules from Jerusalem, does that mean he rules only over Jews? His answer is no. Jerusalem being a capital doesn’t limit Christ’s authority. Smith and Rowland say Jesus is King of the universe, not a local ruler.

That’s why they keep returning to literal interpretation. If the end goal is real, then God’s promises to Israel, the nations, and the future reign of Christ remain real. If the end goal becomes symbolic, then the whole arc of Scripture becomes easier to flatten into metaphor.

Israel, 1948, and why replacement theology changes real-world thinking

From their perspective, the theological danger does not stay inside church walls.

Rowland says replacement theology puts Israel “on the back burner” by teaching that God has rejected Israel and raised up the church as the new Israel in a way that cancels Israel’s national future. Smith agrees and says this mindset affects how people think about nations and policy, because theology guides a person’s worldview.

Rowland brings up a comparison. He claims that many top military leaders in the 1950s and 1960s were professing believers and also premillennialists, while he believes leaders today tend toward replacement theology. Their argument is straightforward: the advice leaders give will pass through the lens of what they believe God is doing in history.

Smith also warns that when replacement theology is mixed with a rising libertarian mood in parts of the conservative movement, Israel becomes easier to treat as “just another country.” The hosts insist this has to be addressed at the theological level first, because politics often follows beliefs that were taught years earlier in seminaries and pulpits.

They describe the battle line plainly: doctrine classrooms and sermons shape the thinking that later shows up in public decisions.

Revelation’s dating, Revelation 1:19, and why they say the book is still future

A key dispute they address is the timing and purpose of Revelation.

They say some preterists argue Revelation was written around AD 65, before Jerusalem fell, so it can be read as a prophecy of AD 70. They respond with a different claim: that most scholars date Revelation to the AD 90s, during the reign of Domitian, and that the early church fathers support that timing.

Their point is not academic trivia. It’s a logical pressure test. If Revelation was written after AD 70 and is still treated as describing AD 70, then it becomes history, not prophecy. Rowland and Smith argue that turning Revelation into a record of past events strips it of its intended purpose, to give God’s people hope about what He will do.

They also make a wider warning. Once someone is trained to say Revelation is not future prophecy, it becomes easier to dismiss other parts of Scripture. Rowland describes a drift where people end up claiming they only need the words of Jesus in the Gospels, and they can ignore Paul, Acts, or even the Old Testament. He sees that as a step-by-step breakdown of biblical authority.

Smith adds another practical angle: people naturally pay more attention to what they believe is future than to what they label “old news.” If the enemy can convince Christians that prophecy already happened, many will stop watching, studying, and expecting Christ’s return.

Why they reject the idea that Revelation was written to “encourage” AD 70 Christians

The hosts also challenge a claim they attribute to preterist thinking: that Revelation was written mainly to comfort Christians during the Roman conflict with the Jewish people.

Smith answers sharply. He says the tribulation material is not an encouragement story for casual reading, it is filled with terrifying judgments. He points out scenes like people hiding in caves and crying out for rocks and mountains to cover them from God’s wrath. He does not see that as a general “comfort letter” for a past war.

Then he makes a separate point about audience. Smith says that when the tribulation period comes, God has already provided a book aimed at Hebrews to give hope in that time, he names the book of Hebrews as central to that context.

Their conclusion stays consistent. If Revelation is reduced to an AD 70 encouragement piece, and Israel is replaced in the story, then Christians end up reading other people’s judgment as their personal comfort. Smith says that’s not how prophecy works.

Revelation 1:19 and the dispensational outline they use

Rowland then gives the structure he believes is built into the book itself. He points to Revelation 1:19 as a three-part outline:

1. “The things thou hast seen”, which he places in Revelation 1, John’s vision of Christ.
2. “The things which are”, which he places in Revelation 2 to 3, the seven messages to the churches, which he believes also map church history up to the rapture.
3. “The things which shall be hereafter”, which he ties to Revelation 4:1, the open door in heaven and the voice saying “Come up hither,” pointing to events after the church age.

Rowland says this is why he reads Revelation 4 through 22 as future prophecy, not as a coded retelling of Rome and Jerusalem.

Smith agrees and says that if preterism forces the entire book into history, then even the structure of the book stops making sense. They also ask why Christ appears to John in chapter one if John is only writing an account of past events.

The Laodicean church age, lukewarm religion, and hope for overcomers

In their view, Revelation 2 and 3 do not get enough attention, even though those chapters speak directly to the church.

Rowland says he believes the church is living in the Laodicean age, marked by being lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. He describes the church as thinking it is rich and increased with goods, while spiritually it is poor, wretched, miserable, blind, and naked.

One detail matters to him: in Laodicea, Jesus is outside the church, knocking and asking to be let in. That image is meant to sober people, not entertain them.

Rowland also clarifies that he sees elements of all seven churches present in every age. A believer can still show Philadelphia-like faithfulness even in a broadly Laodicean time. He stresses the promises to “overcomers,” meaning a Christian does not have to match the worst traits of the wider church culture.

This is where their argument returns to hope. If prophecy is future, then the church has reason to stay awake. If prophecy is pushed into the past, Smith says it produces a dull and joyless outlook, with little expectation of Christ’s return.

Conclusion: why they say “full or partial,” preterism still pulls in the wrong direction

Smith and Rowland treat preterism as more than a harmless opinion. They say it trains Christians to loosen their grip on a plain reading of prophecy, it feeds replacement theology, and it opens the door to contempt for Israel, which they connect to real harm in history. They also say it drains the blessed hope by shifting key events into the past.

Their bottom line is simple. The battle is not first in politics. It starts in pulpits and seminaries, where the next generation learns what to do with Revelation, Israel, and the return of Christ.

For more from Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland, visit the Kingdom Prophetic Society website and follow the Smith and Rowland Show daily podcast feed.