History reveals that Old Testament Judaism ended when the Roman army conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish temple. This happened in A.D. 70 and it is this date that The A.D. 70 doctrine is built around. They contend that at this time God's divine plan and purpose ended. The basic premise of this false doctrine is the assumption that the promised second coming of Christ occurred at that time. King writes in his book The Spirit of Prophecy (which has more or less become the A.D. 70 adherent's Bible):

No distinction is made in Scripture between what we might call the 'second coming' and the fall of Jerusalem. The physical and spiritual results, and the significance of that event, fill every need and purpose of the coming of Christ (172).

So, according to King, anyone looking beyond A.D. 70 for Christ's personal return and our bodily resurrection does so without scriptural basis. He writes; "There is no scriptural basis for extending the second coming of Christ beyond the fall of Judaism" (105). "...the end of the Jewish world was the second coming of Christ" (8). "Prophecy found its complete fulfillment in the second coming of Christ, and now may be regarded as closed and consummated" (65).

To an honest Bible student King's contention that Christ's second coming occurred in A.D. 70 is incredulous. But those familiar with the A.D. 70 dogma know that King and his followers have little regard for proper hermeneutics and scriptural context. They have concocted a whole scheme of teaching that attempts to interpret scripture as they think it ought to read, not what the scripture actually says. They find a phrase in the Bible and assume it means the same thing each time it is used. This is mighty poor Bible exegesis (interpretation, explanation). It is a fact that some phrases have different meanings in different contexts. Let me give you an example of how one phrase changes meanings in different contexts. Note the phrase, "laid hands on them" Acts 4:3 (to arrest), Acts 13:3 (to commend), Lk.13:3 (to heal), Acts 8:17; 19:6 (to impart spiritual gifts). The same phrase - different contexts - different meanings.

The A.D. 70 people arrive at the idea that Christ's second coming happened in A.D. 70 by ignoring the context when they see phrases concerning the "coming of Christ." They assume that every time they see the phrase it always means the "second coming of Christ." But they are dead wrong with this assumption. The fact is, that the Bible teaches there are different "kinds" of "comings" of Christ mentioned in the New Testament. Some are literal and some figurative (symbolic or spiritual). Failing to see this distinction leads to the fallacies of the A.D. 70 movement.

When Jesus promised His generation that they would see Him coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:28) and that it would come with power (Mark 9:1), He was not speaking of His literal coming. A careful reading of these scriptures does not require Jesus coming literally in person. His coming was to be a figurative coming with His presence being seen when His promised kingdom was established. This occurred on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4, 33). In Matthew 24:29-34 we learn that Jesus made another promise of His coming. The context shows this to be a coming in judgment against the Jewish nation, which occurred in A.D.70. But it was not a literal, personal coming, rather a fulfillment of His spoken word. He did not come in person but the Jews felt His presence as the clouds of judgment fell upon them and their city.

There are only two literal comings of Christ taught in the scriptures. There is no dispute, even from the A.D.70 crowd, that Jesus' first literal coming was when He entered the world as a human being, to offer Himself as a sacrifice for sin. But, Jesus also promised a second coming which is also to be literal. There is only one passage that specifically speaks of the "second coming of Christ" (Hebrews 9:28). Jesus came the first time to be a sin offering, but He will "appear a second time apart from sin, for salvation." Notice that it says, "He will appear a second time." This means the second time will be an appearance in the same manner, or in the same way He appeared the first time. If His first appearance was physical and literal, so will His second appearance be. King admits that Jesus' first coming was physical, but will not admit the second. By his insistence on making the second coming a "spiritual" coming differing from Jesus' first literal coming King reveals his dishonesty by ignoring the text's plain teaching to defend his false doctrine. What do the scriptures actually teach about His second, literal, bodily coming?

In John 14:1-3 Jesus promised His disciples that He was going to leave them so He might prepare a place for them in His Father's house. Where was He going? To heaven, the dwelling place of His Father (1 Kings 8:30). He then said, "And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again (bolding mine –t.t.) and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also." The word "again" implies that this coming was to be of the same nature as the first coming. King denies this. He says this promise is not literal, but a new "spiritual" coming. To arrive at this conclusion he reinterprets Jesus' words by ignoring the context as well as rules of grammar. There is NO compelling contextual reason for making this coming spiritual in nature.

In this same vein, contending that Jesus' second coming is to be literal, not spiritual, turn to Acts 1:9-11. For 40 days after His resurrection Jesus has been with His disciples. He is now assembled with them on Mt. Olivet. His earthly ministry is finished and He is ready to leave the earth and return to heaven. After giving them final instructions He begins to ascend. As they "looked steadfastly toward heaven" watching Him depart, two angels asked "why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner (emphasis mine - t.t.) as you saw Him go into heaven." The phrase "in like manner" means that when He returns it will be just as visible and literal as His departure. If people, with physical eyes, saw Jesus leave the earth, then people, with physical eyes, will see Him return. But the A.D.70 doctrine denies this. They tell us that Jesus' second coming occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem. I ask them, "Was Jesus seen when the Romans destroyed the temple and brought a final end to the OT Jewish economy?" King admits that Jesus was not visibly, literally seen as that time. So, Jesus' second coming did not occur at that time. According to the New Testament scriptures we have studied He is yet to come again, and it will be in His time, not ours.