Christine’s commentary on the dating of John’s vision (Introduction, pp. 1-2):

If John did indeed see the vision before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70, then it seems that the Preterist view would have been the prevailing view among the Church fathers, since it would have been seen to have been fulfilled right in front of their eyes by them.

However, Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown’s Commentary, in its “Introduction to Revelation,” says,

“The first theory [speaking of the Preterist] was not held by any of the earliest Fathers, and is only held now by Rationalists, who limit John’s vision to things within his own horizon, pagan Rome’s persecutions of Christians, and its consequently anticipated destruction.”

Furthermore, the traditional Preterist commentators have displayed the most aggressive Replacement Theology I have ever come across in print.

See for example, Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Whole Bible.

One other view which all of us have heard is that Revelation has already been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple (70 AD, Introduction, pg. 1). This view is called Preterism.

“Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the 1st century. Preterists believe the dating of the book of Revelation is vitally important and that it was before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Preterism was first expounded by the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar during the Counter Reformation. The Preterist view served to bolster the Catholic Church’s position against attacks by Protestants, who identified the Pope with the Anti-Christ.”

“Preterism,” Wikipedia.

“ … [The idea behind Full Preterism is that] John’s Book of Revelation should be regarded as a purely historical work [without any application to the future implied]. What we and the earth we’re standing on are still doing here 2000 years later is not explained, but this idea had its source in the First Council of Trent, the Vatican’s counterthrust to the Protestant Reformation, and we even know the name of the man who was to spend his life developing it. He was a Jesuit named Luis De Alcazar (1554– 1613), the author of Vestigatio Arcani Sensus in Apocalypsi, or ‘Investigation into the Hidden Meaning of the Apocalypse,’ which was published in the year 1614. The purpose of his book was to destabilise the main thrust of Protestantism that the pope of Rome was the very Antichrist foretold in John’s Revelation, and that the Church of Rome was Mystery Babylon, the Mother of Harlots who sits on the seven hills of Rome. The papacy had lost much ground in the early-mid 16th century over this identification and it was vital that the process be challenged, stemmed, or better still, reversed, and this was best achieved by convincing the world that the events which John wrote of, all belonged to an earlier age than the papacy. So whoever the Antichrist was, it couldn’t have been the pope; and whatever the Harlot was, it couldn’t have been the Roman Catholic Church …”

Bill Cooper. The Authenticity of the New Testament Part 2: Acts, the Epistles and Revelation (Kindle Locations 1707-1714).  . Kindle Edition.

Traditionally, Revelation was seen as an unfolding prophecy of the things which will take place between the first and second comings of Jesus Christ (Introduction, pg. 1).

See, for example, Dr. Francis Nigel Lee’s list of Apostolic and Church Fathers who interpreted biblical predictions historically, as found in Biblical Predictions Not Preterist but Historicist, Table of Contents, and examined in detail throughout the book.

“The Continuous Historical theory regards the book as giving a continuous history of the church from the first century to the end of the age. Among the leaders of this method of interpretation are Luther, Bengel, Isaac Newton, Elliott, Alford, Barnes, Grattan, Guiness. From the thirteenth century until recently this theory has had almost universal sway.”

O. P. Eaches, Clark’s Peoples’ Commentary, “Revelation,” p. xxvi.

The view that all the events of Revelation are future to us is a relatively new view in the history of the church (Introduction, pg. 1).

“The Futurist system: The events of the Apocalypse from ch. 4 to the close lie beyond the second advent of Christ. This scheme usually adopts a literal interpretation of Israel, the Temple, and the numbers (the 3-1/2 times, 42 months, 1260 days, 3-1/2 years). So Ribera, (a Jesuit, 1592), Lacunza, (another Jesuit, who wrote under the name of Ben-Ezra ‘on the coming of Messiah in glory and majesty,’ and taught the premillennial advent, the literal restoration of the ancient Zion, and the future apostasy of the clergy of the Roman church to the camp of Antichrist) …”.

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 838.

“The Futurist school is open to this great objection: it would leave the Church of Christ unprovided with prophetical guidance or support under her fiery trials for 1700 or 1800 years. Now God has said, ‘Surely He will do nothing, but He revealeth His secrets unto His servants the prophets’ (Am 3:7). The Jews had a succession of prophets who guided them with the light of prophecy: what their prophets were to them, that the apocalyptic Scriptures have been, and are, to us.”

Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown’s Commentary, “Introduction to Revelation.”

“In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the ‘Antichrist,’ and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views.”

Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, Ch. 2, “Pre-Millennialism.”

The plain meaning of the language is that the events of Revelation began to come to pass shortly after John received the vision. (Introduction, pg. 1.) What is meant by plain meaning? How should Scripture be interpreted?

“The grammatical and historical interpretation of the Apocalypse, as well as of any other book, is the only safe foundation for all legitimate spiritual and practical application.”

Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 1, p. 698.