First is the Preterist view, meaning they “favor the past.” This view came about in the 17th century under the Jesuits. They presuppose that most, if not all the prophecies of the Apocalypse have been fulfilled and/or pertain to what was happening in the first century. The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple are the main themes and events and they believe accordingly that Nero is the anti-Christ and thus past events have been completed.

Therefore, the main point of Revelation was to encourage the Christians under persecution. For those who accept this view, Revelation becomes just historical and didactic, giving us only examples of being faithful. Most with this view subscribe to the apocalyptic outcome of earth and humanity of devastation and ultimate doom. This view is practical and views Revelation as mainly principles.

The problem with this is that the Book of Revelation if it was not written until after the destruction, so how could there be a prophecy if the events have already occurred? Their response is Revelation was written between 67 and 68 AD. The main problem is, if these climactic events already happened, why is there no mention by the Early Church Fathers? The stars did not fall from heaven (Matt. 24:29), in addition the one-third of all animals or humans were not killed (Rev. 9:18; 16:3) in A.D. 70 or any time in global history thus far.

Another problem is that Rome was not overthrown by God and the Christians did not have any victory. This view is favored amongst some Reformed peoples and mostly by liberals. There is also a Partial- Preterist view that says some of the events have occurred but not all such as the Second Coming, which is in hot debate. This view has wider acceptance over the pure Preterits view and is growing today.