Another pillar of the A.D.70 doctrine is what its adherents term "covenant transition." They refer to this as the "eschaton" (last times) period, the 40 years (30-70 AD) between the cross and the destruction of Jerusalem. They contend that the crucifixion of Christ did not end the Old Covenant, it only began a transition period that was not completed until the end of the "eschaton" in A.D.70. To them this date marked the true end of the Old Covenant and the full establishment of the New. So, the Old Covenant remained in force until Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. They want us to believe that Jesus' death did not end the Old Covenant, it was only "ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). In his book King explains: "the words 'ready to vanish away' are very significant in this passage (i.e. Heb. 8:13) showing that the Old Covenant world continued for several years after the cross. The final end came with the fall of Jerusalem, and this event marked the passing of heaven and earth" (SOP. 26). So, during the "eschaton" period there was an "overlapping" or "co-existence" of both the Old and New Covenants. The Old continued to be in force, alongside the New, until A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was finally destroyed by the Roman armies. King further teaches along this line that "out of the decay of Judaism arose the spiritual body of Christ" (SOP. 200). After the cross the Old covenant began "to die" in order that it might be "resurrected" as the New Covenant in A.D.70. This is absurd. To have two covenants in force at the same time is unscriptural and is in reality "spiritual adultery."

Why do I call this A.D.70 doctrinal teaching "spiritual adultery"? God's word clearly teaches one cannot be under two different laws at the same time Romans 7:1-4. In the passage Paul begins his point by using the illustration of a married woman, showing that while her husband lives if she marries another man it is adultery. But if the husband is dead she is "released from the law of her husband" and is free to marry another man. After this illustration he then turns to man’s present relationship to the Law of Moses. It is dead and man has been released from it. He is now under the law of Christ (the New Covenant). If King is right that both covenants overlapped and were in force at the same time for 40 years then Paul's application would mean nothing.

To defend the idea of two laws "overlapping" or "co-existing" at the same time King and his followers abuse and terribly distort Paul's allegory in Galatians 4:21-31. In his book, King writes, "Christianity is a fulfillment of the prophecies, types and shadows of the law and not merely a 'fill-in' between Judaism and another age to come. Abraham had two sons, and there was no gap between them. They "overlapped" a little, but Isaac "came on" when Ismael "went out." The son born of the spirit was given the place and inheritance of the son born of the flesh. Hence, this simple allegory (Galsatians 4:21-31) establishes the "Spirit of Prophecy," confirming prophecy's fulfillment in the spiritual seed of Abraham through Christ (Galatians 3:16, 26-29), and beyond the fall of Jerusalem these prophecies cannot be extended" (SOP p 239).

The background for this allegory is Galatians 3:23-29. When Paul wrote these words in A.D. 59-60 Christians (both Jew and Gentile) were not under the Law of Moses (verse 25). They were justified, not by the Law of Moses, but by faith in Christ. But before Christ came the Law of Moses was in effect (verse 23). It had served as a tutor to bring men to Christ (verses 24-25), but now that Christ has come there is no further need for a tutor. It was finished. Now we are children of God and heirs according to Abraham by Faith in Christ, not by physical birth (verses 26-29).

Paul states the purpose of the allegory in verse 21 – to show that the Old Law is invalid now that the New Law of Christ has been established. In the allegory Hagar (the bondwoman) represents the Mosaic Law, and her child, Ishmael (born according to natural law) represents Old Testament Israel, the children of bondage (verse 24). Sarah (the freewoman) corresponds to the new covenant and Isaac (born miraculously, and according to promise) corresponds to Christians, the children of promise (verses 26-28). In verse 29 the children of bondage (Jews) are seen as persecutors of the children of promise (Christians), just as Ishmael persecuted Isaac. Ishmael was not the child of promise. After Isaac (the child of promise) was born, Ishmael was cast out. King, by using subjective applications and arbitrary but also very unscriptural definitions, tells us that Ishmael remained in Abraham’s house for a period of time alongside Isaac, thus contending Paul's allegory proves that the Old Law co-existed with the Law of Christ during the "eschaton" period (30-70 AD) alongside the Law of Christ. This is not what Paul is teaching. He is telling Christians, do not turn back to the Law of Moses and live under it. Cast it out, for one will not find justification there (verse 31; 5:4). A rule of proper exegesis is that no one has the right to apply and force the allegory beyond where and how inspired men applied it. Beware of the convoluted wisdom of men Colossians 2:8; 2 Peter 3:16; 1 Corinthians 3:22).

Notice other passages that refute the idea of the Old and New Covenants overlapping. Colossians 2:13-15 clearly indicates that Jesus dying on the cross marked the end of the Old Covenant. King and his followers twist the teachings of these verses (see SOP.154), just as do the 7th Day Adventists, other sabbatarians and even some brethren who seek to justify unscriptural remarriages. They seek to evade the plain teaching by claiming "the handwriting of requirements" (Colossians 2:14) that was wiped out (removed) at the cross was not the Mosaic Law but only the bond or agreement by the Jews to keep the ordinances. They err by ignoring the parallel passage in Ephesians 2:14-16. Paul identifies "the enmity" that Jesus "abolished in His flesh" as the "law of commandments contained in ordinances." This is parallel to "the handwriting of ordinances" of Colossians 2. Those who advocate that "the handwriting of requirements" (Colossians 2) was not the Mosaic Law may deny the parallel, but they cannot in all honesty deny the fact that Ephesians 2:13-15 teaches that the Law of Moses ended at the cross. "Indeed, let God be true and every man a liar" (Romans 3:4).

Teaching that both the Old and New Covenants were in force at the same time would also mean that two priesthoods also existed at the same time. Shades of Mormonism. Hebrews 7:11-14 disputes this. Under the Old Law they had the Levitical priesthood (verse 11). While the Law of Moses was in effect Jesus Christ could not serve as high priest since He came from the tribe of Judah and not Levi (verses 13-14; 8:4). If, as the A.D.70 advocates teach, both laws existed at the same time, this means Jesus had to wait until A.D. 70 to become our High Priest. But Jesus became our High Priest as soon as He ascended back to heaven and was seated at His Father’s right hand (Hebrews 8:1-2; 6:20; 10:21). If Jesus became High Priest when He ascended back to heaven, then the Law of Moses also ended before A.D. 70.