1

The doctrine known as the A.D. 70 theory is another false doctrine that is among our brethren

today. Max King is the man who popularized this and coined the term “covenant Eschatology”. He was a

preacher for the church of Christ for forty years. “King contended that Biblical eschatology was not

related to the end of the space-time universe, but the transition of the Old Covenant to the New.” 1 The

A.D. 70 theory is also known as, “Realized Eschatology” and “Kingism”. This Doctrine holds that all

Bible prophecy has been fulfilled. The second coming of Christ, The Judgment, the resurrection of the

dead, the Law of Moses and redemption all occurred in 70 A.D. at the destruction of Jerusalem.

The second coming is described in the Bible as a day unexpected. There are no signs of when this

is to occur. Kings says it already happened. If this is true then all scripture should agree on this, yet it

does not. In Acts 1:11 the return of Christ is described like this, “Which also said, Ye men of Galilee,

why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so

come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. He left in bodily form, he was seen as he left, he

received by a cloud. If he is to come in a like manner, he will come in a cloud, and will be seen by people.

If he did come like King says then why are there not any ancient writers that recorded it? It seems like

something as big the return of Christ would have been worthy to write down, yet no one did. Like many

other things taught by Kingism, this does not agree with the teachings of the Bible.

The Bible clearly teaches that the law was abolished on Calvary. The book of Hebrews shows the

superiority of Christ to the law. There would be no reason to encourage the Hebrews to become

Christians if the they were approved by God under the Law of Moses. Hebrew 9:12 proves that

redemption was only through Christ and not the. Hebrews 9:12 (KJV), “Neither by the blood of goats and

calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption

for us.” The new covenant was in effect at the death of Christ. A testament is the same as a will; it goes

into effect at the death of the testator, which in this case was Christ. It was his death that brought the New

Testament into full effect. There are not any passages that support the idea of God having both covenants

1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_King&oldid=366064311
 2

at the same time with his approval. To the contrary there are many passages that show after the death of

Christ the law was no long approved.

In order for their doctrine to make sense, one thing the proponents of this must do is redefine

words and terms to mean something else than what the common interpretation suggests. For example the

word “graves”, when we read of this in scripture we commonly think of “graves” referring to those who

are literally dead. According to their doctrine, this is the wrong interpretation. They claim the word

“graves” is referring to those who are dead in the grave of Judaism. There is no reason to assume this.

They also claim the resurrection is referring to Christianity rising out of the dead body of Judaism. What

doesn’t fit is the fact that they also contend during the transitional period, Judaism and Christianity were

practiced at the same time with God’s approval. How can they claim that and also say that the word

resurrection is referring to Christianity coming out of Judaism? That does not fit the definition of a

resurrection. Webster’s online Dictionary defines resurrection as, “…act of rising from the dead, from

resurgere to rise from the dead, from Latin, to rise again, from re- + surgere to rise.” 2 How can a

resurrection take place from something that is still living?

What they are forced to conclude by their interpretation is there is not a physical future

resurrection of the dead. They do not deny that Jesus was resurrected in a physical bodily form. In

1Corithians 15:24-26, Paul speaks of a physical resurrection. He says in verse 24 “Then cometh the end,

when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God…” In The end the kingdom will be delivered up not

restored as Kingism says. Did this take place in A.D. 70? In verse 25 Paul says “For he must reign, till he

hath put all enemies under his feet.” Does Christ still have enemies? Yes he does, for example; Islam.

They are Christ’s enemies along with many others. So if Christ still has enemies he must still be reigning

over his kingdom. Verse 26 states that “the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” although it’s easy

to see that Christians have and will continue to die until his final coming.

2
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
 3

Their teachings concerning the kingdom do not make any sense. They claim the kingdom did not

come on Pentecost, it came in 70 A.D. The day of Pentecost was just a beginning point. They say it did

not come with glory and power until 70 A.D. This implies that those who were baptized on this day in

Acts 2 were being added to an inglorious; powerless kingdom. Mark 9:1 states that the kingdom would

come with power. It would be hard to recognize the kingdom if it came powerless on Pentecost and then

in power in 70 A.D. The kingdom came with its power at the same time; this is the only way this makes

sense. Since they contend that redemption did not come until the destruction of Jerusalem, everyone

baptized prior to 70 A.D. were still in their sins. What was the point of being added to the Lord’s church?

Was it a church full of sinners? What does that make the church, the shedding of blood on the cross, and

Christians prior to 70 A.D.? It would have been pointless. It is scary the way those who adhere to this take

a date of destruction, and place it above the actual sacrifice of Jesus. Why was Christ even crucified? If it

was the destruction of Jerusalem that brought forth redemption, then it was their blood that was shed for

us. Of course that is not true, only the blood of Christ could make anointment for our sins.

King doesn’t see it that way, he stated, “The fall of Jerusalem was the culmination of God’s

redemptive program,”3 This is blasphemy. Jesus Christ and his sacrificial death was the culmination of

God’s plan for redemption, not the fall of Jerusalem. Colossians 1:14 states we have redemption through

his blood, whose blood was shed during the fall of Jerusalem? The law did not typify 70 A.D.; it typified

Christ, showing that he was God’s plan for redemption since the beginning. Christ giving his life for us

would have less meaning if redemption, adoption, inheritance, and marriage came in 70 A.D. Ephesians

5:22-25 Paul compared the relationship of husband and wife to the relationship of Christ and the church.

He said,

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the
wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;”

3
The Spirit of Prophecy by Max King pg.227.
 4

The time of this writing was prior to 70 A.D. If Christ was not the “husband” of the church this would

have been confusing to the Ephesians and all who read this. What kind of message would he be giving?

Would this mean that women could be subject to men that they were not really married to? Could men

have women that they were not married to? Of course not, that means it is a false interpretation of the

passage.

King is forced to draw another false conclusion due to their redefining words. His doctrine

teaches that the end of the world came in the 70 A.D. as well. He contends this is when 2 Peter chapter 3

was fulfilled. Of Course he does not pay attention to the context of the chapter. In verses 3-6 Peter speaks

of scoffers who are ignorant of the destruction that God has already demonstrated by the flood that

destroyed all the life on earth. Noah and his family were the only ones spared. In verses 7-11 he then

parallels the Day of Judgment with the flood. The judgment during the days of Noah was a universal

judgment. King says that the word “world” means the Jewish world that passed in 70 A.D. But the world

was destroyed in the flood; the whole planet was filled with water. In verse 7 the same “heavens and the

earth” are reserved for the Day of Judgment, and “heaven and earth” were referring to the planet not

Judaism. The destruction of Jerusalem was a local Judgment. Peter is talking about a universal judgment,

which is seen in the following passages. 2 Peter 3:10 states,

“But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in which the heavens shall pass away with a
great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up.”

According to this verse the works of earth will be burned as well as the earth itself. This is a literal

meaning, there is no reason to try and make this figurative, unless you’re teaching a false doctrine like

Max King. Why would Peter compare a literal universal destruction and judgment like the flood to

establish his meaning of a figurative local judgment on Jerusalem? It would be confusing, like the rest

Kingism.
 5

Another point that needs to be discussed is, if the new heaven and earth represent life for the

believers after the destruction of Jerusalem, what has changed? The world is still full of sin, and

Christians were still severely persecuted after 70 A.D.

This kind understanding from the scriptures it brings questions concerning authority. If the

second coming was when they say it was, how do we know what we should and should not be doing in

worship and in our lives? How do we know what is pleasing to God and what is not? For example the

Lords Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:26, “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the

Lord's death till he come.” If he has already come are we supposed to continue to practice it? Do we have

authority to do so? We could be sinning every time we partake of it.

When a doctrine as many problems as Kingism, even to the point of having to give words entire

new meanings, this should be a red flag to people that screams “false doctrine.” People are buying in to

this kind of thing all the time. This is why studying the Bible is so important. This kind of non-sense can

and does convince those who are unfamiliar with the Scriptures. Some purposely will not understand in

order to hold their position.