Philip Mauro Study Archive

It is mortifying to remember that I not only held and taught these novelties myself, but that I even enjoyed a complacent sense of superiority because thereof, and regarded with feelings of pity and contempt those who had not received the ‘new light’

Philip Mauro

FAMOUS PATENT LAWYER | SUPREME COURT LAWYER | PREPARED BRIEFS FOR SCOPES TRIAL | WAS ON CARPATHIA DURING RESCUE OF RMS TITANIC SURVIVORS

As far as twentieth century Christian figures are concerned, Philip Mauro stands out as one of the most captivating. After coming to a saving knowledge of the Lord in 1903, at the age of forty five, Mauro, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day, began his “Testimony” of what was to him the most important event in his life.

His repeated successes in courts of law, coupled with his legal briefs, could not but gain recognition, for they were “models of accuracy, conciseness, and literary finish.” As such, they were “frequently used by judges in the text of their decisions.” Perhaps one of the most important occasions where his legal work was requisitioned was in connection with the famous Tennessee-Scopes trial in 1925. The argument which William Jennings Bryan used, and thereby won the case, was prepared by Philip Mauro.

His early twentieth century was a period of great expansion for many errors, such as Dispensationalism and Anglo Israelism. Mauro’s book, “The Hope of Israel,” which was written three years prior to the Scopes trial, stands as a testament to his astute mind and sharp pen, most dashing in the face of the most formidable adversaries. Rising to the forefront of Christianity’s great struggle against these foes, he applied the preparation God had given him, and scored great victories for sound doctrine.

RELEVANT WORKS

WHO IS “THE PRINCE THAT SHALL COME”? At this point we are confronted with a question which very seriously affects the interpretation of the prophecy. Taking the words according to their apparent and obvious meaning (which should always be done except where there is a compelling reason to the contrary) it would seem quite clear that “the prince,” whose people were to destroy the city and the sanctuary, was Titus, the son of the then emperor Vespasian, he (Titus) being the “prince” or “leader” who was in actual command of those armies at the time. In fact we are bold to say that the words of the prophecy, which are the words of God sent directly from heaven to Daniel, do not reasonably admit of any other interpretation.

(On The Significance of A.D.70)
“It is greatly to be regretted that those who, in our day, give themselves to the study and exposition of prophecy, seem not to be aware of the immense significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which was accompanied by the extinction of Jewish national existence, and the dispersion of the Jewish people among all the nations. The failure to recognize the significance of that event, and the vast amount of prophecy which it fulfilled, has been the cause of great confusion, for the necessary consequence of missing the past fulfilment of predicted events is to leave on our hands a mass of prophecies for which we must needs contrive fulfilments in the future. The harmful results are two fold; for first, we are thus deprived of the evidential value, and the support to the faith, of those remarkable fulfilments of prophecy which are so clearly presented to us in authentic contemporary histories; and second, our vision of things to come is greatly obscured and confused by the transference to the future of predicted events which, in fact, have already happened, and whereof complete records have been preserved for our information.”

“Yet, in the face of all this, we have today a widely held scheme of prophetic interpretation, which has for its very cornerstone the idea that, when God’s time to remember His promised mercies to Israel shall at last have come, He will gather them into their ancient land again, only to pour upon them calamities and distresses far exceeding even the horrors which attended the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is, we are convinced, an error of such magnitude as to derange the whole program of unfulfilled prophecy.”

(On Matthew 24:34)
“The Lord’s own predictions and warnings concerning that event, which was then close at hand, were most explicit. And not only so, but He plainly said that “all these things shall come upon this generation.” Besides all that, He specified the very sins for which that generation was to be thus punished beyond anything known before, or that should be thereafter, thus making it a simple impossibility that the “tribulation” and “vengeance” which He predicted could fall upon any subsequent generation.”

(On Jeremiah 31:35-37)
“But even if we disregard the context and confine our attention to the verses quoted in the article we are reviewing, it is plain that they contain no prediction that the earthly Israel is to be “restored as a nation.” The promise they contain is that Israel should never cease from being a nation. Now it is easy to see the fulfilment of this promise in Christ and His redeemed people; for “Israel” is perpetuated in that “peculiar people” (Tit. 2:14, I Pet. 2:9) just as David’s line is maintained and perpetuated in Jesus Christ the Son of David risen from the dead (see also Mat. 21:43, where our Lord speaks of the new “nation”). But it is simply an impossibility that the prophecy that the seed of Israel should never “cease from being a nation” should apply to the natural seed of Jacob; for they have ceased from being a nation since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” (The Hope of Israel, What Is It? – CHAPTER XIX)

(On the Seventy Weeks of Daniel)
“We understand that the sense in which the death of Christ made an end of sins was that thereby he made a perfect atonement for sins, as written in Hebrews 1:3, ‘when He had by Himself purged our sin,’ and in many like passages.” (The Seventy Weeks, p 47)

(On Romans 11:26)
“The words “And so all Israel shall be saved” (v. 26) have been strangely misunderstood. They have been taken to mean that all natural Jews are to be saved in a coming dispensation. But they cannot possibly be made to yield that meaning. The adverb “so” declares how (not when) “all Israel” shall be saved. IT refers to the process of grafting into the good olive tree branches from “a wild olive tree” and branches broken off from the good olive tree itself; and it declares that “so,” that is to say, in that manner, and hence necessarily in this present dispensation of the Holy Spirit, “all” the Israel of God shall be saved. Instead therefore, of indicating a special (earthly) salvation for the Jews in a future dispensation, the words, “And so all Israel shall be saved,” preclude all possibility of such a thing.” (The Hope of Israel, ch. 13)

(On the Audience of Galatians)
“After speaking in the first person of the Jews, the Apostle, addressing the Gentile Galatians, says by way of contrast: “For you are all the children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek.” The contrast between the “we” of verses 24,25 and the “you” of verse 26, is very significant….” (The Christian’s Relationship To The Mosaic Law)

(On the Forty Years and That Generation)
“Yet the predicted judgment did not immediately follow; for Christ prayed for His murderers in His dying hour, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lu. 23:34). In answer to that prayer the full probationary period of forty years (A.D. 30 to A.D. 70) was added to their national existence, during which time repentance and remission of sins was preached to them in the Name of the crucified and risen One, and tens of thousands of Jews were saved. ” (Seventy Weeks, ch. 5)

(On the “Two Stage Secret Rapture” Theory)
“It is mortifying to remember that I not only held and taught these novelties myself, but that I even enjoyed a complacent sense of superiority because thereof, and regarded with feelings of pity and contempt those who had not received the ‘new light’ and were unacquainted with this up-to-date method of ‘rightly dividing the word of truth’… The time came… when the inconsistencies and self-contradictions of the system itself, and above all, the impossibility of reconciling its main positions with the plain statement of the Word of God, became so glaringly evident that I could not do otherwise than to renounce it” (Kingdom, pp.177,178).

“This remarkable characteristic of speaking as with absolute and supreme authority may be discerned in all the recorded utterances of Christ. Never is the note of authority lacking, as often it would be if He were other than “the Lord of all”; for no pretender could possibly keep his sayings on the superlatively high level that would be necessary in order to support such a claim. But in His case, whether He spoke to the leper, or to the paralytic, or to the blind, or to the lame, or the deaf, or the dead, or to winds and waves, or to the fig-tree, or to the demons, or to His servants when He sent them upon a mission, it was ever as the One whose very word compels obedience, as the One who in the beginning said “Light be,” and instantly light was. In a word, every utterance of His is in perfect keeping with His own statement, “All authority is given unto Me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore” (Mat. 28:18-20). It is simply an impossibility (and who can fail to recognize it?) that any man could impart to his every word this Divine quality of “having authority,” or that men could have invented such a character, and put into his mouth utterances which, no matter under what circumstances they were spoken, are found to be, when closely scrutinized, impregnated with the consciousness of having supreme and absolute authority. But one conclusion is possible from these facts, namely, that Jesus Christ is Immanuel, God manifest in the flesh.” (Never Man)

“But it is simply an impossibility that the prophecy that the seed of Israel should never “cease from being a nation” should apply to the natural seed of Jacob; for they have ceased from being a nation since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. “

(On Dispensationalism)
“Dispensationalism may be fascinating as a work of art, but as a revelation it rests upon a foundation of sand. The entire system of dispensational teaching is modernistic in the strictest sense: it is modernism, moreover of a very pernicious sort, such that it must have a Bible of its own (i.e., the Scofield Reference Bible) for the propaganda of its peculiar doctrines since they are not in the Word of God.”

“After much deliberation, whether the coming of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, or the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, was the Second Coming of the Son of God, Mr. Mauro finally made his choice and decided that the destruction of Jerusalem was the Coming of the Lord and that it fulfilled the definite and precise promise recorded by Matthew: —Verily I say unto you, that there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16:28)”

Philip Mauro’s Conversion from Dispensationalism to Preterism (1919-1921)

The fact is that the Lord led him step by step out of his “confusion and mystification regarding the whole subject of the Kingdom.” As the light of the day appears only gradually, so, in his soul, the full light slowly became brighter. Truths which at first seemed hazy and vague later were clear and definite.When Philip Mauro turns to the second part of his treatise, “The Lord’s Prophecy on Mount Olivet,” he makes a statement of paramount importance:“Obviously we cannot with profit enter upon the study of unfulfilled prophecy until we have settled our minds as to the predicted things which have already come to pass.”This statement is made in connection with his remarks in “The Importance of the Destruction of Jerusalem.”“It is greatly to be regretted,” observed Philip Mauro,” that those who, in our day, give themselves to the study and exposition of prophecy, seem not to be aware of the immense significance of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, which was accompanied by the extinction of Jewish national existence, and the dispersion of the Jewish people among all the nations. The failure to recognize the significance of that event, and the vast amount of prophecy which it fulfilled, has been the cause of great confusion, for the necessary consequence of missing the past fulfillment of predicted events is to leave on our hands a mass of prophecies for which we must needs contrive fulfillments in the future. The harmful results are two-fold; for first, we are thus deprived of the evidential value, and the support to the faith, of those remarkable fulfillments of prophecy which are so clearly presented to us in authentic contemporary histories; and second, our vision of things to come is greatly obscured and confused by the transference to the future of predicted events which, in fact, have already happened, and whereof complete records have been preserved for our information.”Of very great value and illumination is the sentence-by-sentence comparison, printed in parallel columns, of “Christ’s Olivet Discourse” as recorded in the three synoptic Gospels. Certainly the author has made an exceedingly strong case for his final paragraph:“Finally, in bringing these studies to a close, we would say again that we do not in the least question there will be much “tribulation” for mankind, and many “distresses” and “woes,” in the end-time of this present age, to be followed by outpouring of the vials in which is “filled up the wrath of God” (Rev. 15:1). All we assert is that, regardless of the nature and severity of the afflictions which are yet to come, that particular “tribulation” whereof the Lord spake as the “great tribulation,” and as “the days of vengeance” (Mat. 24:21; Lu. 21:22) was the execution of divine judgment upon Daniel’s people and his holy city, for which God used the Roman armies under Titus in A.D. 70.” (From Champion of the Kingdom)

BOB JONES UNIVERSITY MISREPRESENTS PHILIP MAURO’S POSITION ON BIBLE VERSIONS


June 26, 2003 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143

fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) –

In the Introduction to a 1981 reprint of a book by Philip Mauro, Bob Jones University Press glaringly misrepresents Mauro’s position on the Bible Version issue and takes a cheap shot at contemporary defenders of the King James Bible.

The book is The World and Its God by Philip Mauro (1859-1952). It was first published in 1905, and the edition reprinted by BJU Press is the second edition of 1908. Consider the following paragraph from the Introduction:

“The Scripture quoted in this book is exactly as was used in the second edition printed in January 1908. Mr. Mauro used the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 heavily in his quotations. Some contemporary authors have used his name and his written defense of the King James Version to defend their own King-James-only position. Mr. Mauro’s frequent use of the Revised Version gives the lie to the claims of those who would misrepresent Mr. Mauro’s position as being in line with the King-James-only heresy” (Introduction to the BJU Press reprint of Mauro’s The World and Its God).

BJU’S MISREPRESENTATION OF PHILIP MAURO

This statement grossly misrepresents Philip Mauro’s position on the Bible Version issue. BJU Press states that Mauro used the Revised Version in 1908, and he did. The story does not end there, though. WHAT BJU PRESS DOES NOT TELL ITS READERS IS THAT MAURO CHANGED HIS POSITION IN REGARD TO THE REVISED VERSION AND THAT IN 1924 HE WROTE A POWERFUL BOOK AGAINST MODERN TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND THE REVISED VERSION!

SOME EXCERPTS FROM MAURO’S WHICH VERSION

My library contains an original copy of Mauro’s 1924 book Which Version? The following quotes from this book define Mauro’s position on the Bible version issue from his own pen:

“… it should be understood that what was contemplated by those who were responsible for the appointment of that Committee [Revised Version of 1881] was simply a revision of the Version of 1611; and had the Committee confined themselves to the task actually entrusted to them, and kept within the limits of the instructions given to them, the results of their long labors would no doubt have been a gain and a blessing to all the English-speaking nations, and through them to all mankind.

“But instead of a Revised version of the long accepted English Bible, the Committee brought forth (so far at least as the New Testament was concerned) a New Version. This fact was not disclosed by them. The ‘Preface to the Edition of A.D. 1885’ gives no indication of it; but through the vigilance of certain godly and scholarly men (Dean Burgon in particular) the important fact was discerned and brought to light that the Committee had produced, not a Revised Version (though that was the name given it) but a New Version, which was a translation of a ‘New Greek Text.’”

NOTE FROM BROTHER CLOUD: These facts about the English Revision of 1881 explain why many men who at first supported the project later rejected it. The revision committee was charged with producing a simple updating of the KJV and were required to make “as few changes as possible.” Instead, Westcott and Hort secretly introduced a radically new Greek New Testament. The rest of the committee, composed of a Unitarian and theological liberals and weak men who claimed to be evangelical in doctrine but who were willing to yoke together with heretics, largely acquiesced to Hort’s enthusiasm. Now we continue from Mauro’s Which Version:

“The importance of this fact will be made evident as we proceed. It will also be a matter of much interest to show the sources from which this ‘New Greek Text’ was derived, and the means whereby its adoption by the Committee (as to which there was considerable mystery at the time) was brought about.

“It is now more than forty years–the Scriptural period of full probation–since the R.V. appeared; and as we contemplate the existing situation (in the year 1924) the most conspicuous fact that presents itself to our view is that the New Version (in either or both its forms) has not superseded the A.V. [Authorized Version or King James Version], and that there is not the faintest indication that it will ever do so. Indeed it appears that the R.V. is declining, rather than gaining, in favor, and that with Bible users of all classes, from the most scholarly to the most unlearned.

“This is a fact of much significance, and due consideration should be given to it in any attempt one might make to arrive at a just estimate of the relative values of the rival Versions. What is the explanation of this fact? It is not that the Old Version did not and does not admit of corrections and improvements. Nor is it that the Revisers did not make them; for it cannot be denied that the R.V. contains many improved readings. Yet for all that, AS THE EXPERIENCE OF A WHOLE GENERATION HAS NOW CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED, THE A.V. RETAINS, AND IN ALL PROBABILITY WILL CONTINUE TO RETAIN, ITS LONG UNDISPUTED PLACE AS THE STANDARD ENGLISH BIBLE.

“This failure of the new Versions, or either of them, to displace the old, is attributed by some to the supposed conservatism of people in general, and to their assumed reluctance to accept changes of any sort. But we should say the truth in this regard is rather that people in our time are unduly ready, and even eager, to welcome every kind of a change. Radical innovations are the order of the day. On every hand we see the ‘old’ being discarded for the ‘new’ and the ‘up-to-date’; and in no department of human affairs is this eagerness for change more manifest than in the field of literature (if that word may be properly applied to what people read now-a-days).

“Moreover, the generation of those who had known only the A.V., and who therefore might have been disposed to cling to it for that reason alone, is now passed away; and the fact which confronts us is that WHEREAS THOSE LIVING AT THAT TIME (1881-1885) SEEMED QUITE READY AND WILLING TO WELCOME THE R.V., FULLY EXPECTING IT TO BE A REAL IMPROVEMENT UPON THE OLDER VERSION, THE ALMOST UNANIMOUS JUDGMENT OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING GENERATION IS THAT THE OLDER VERSION IS TO BE PREFERRED.

“But, looking beyond and above the sphere of mere human judgment, and recognizing the superintendence of the Spirit of God in all that has to do with the Word of God, we feel warranted in concluding from the facts stated above that there are Divine reasons for the retention of the A.V. in the favor of the people of God. We will try, therefore, to point out some of those reasons” (Philip Mauro,Which Version, Introduction).
________________________

Mauro’s position is obvious from these quotations. From there, he proceeded to defend the Greek Received Text against the critical text founded upon modern textual criticism and the King James Version against the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901.

In chapter three, Mauro discussed the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts, which are highly revered by modern textual critics. He concluded that they “are so corrupt upon their face as to justify the conclusion that they owe their survival solely to their bad reputation.” He said further, “… when the two MSS. which controlled the Westcott and Hort text are scrutinized [Vaticanus and Sinaiticus], they are found to contain such internal proofs of their unreliability as to impeach their own testimony, and render them utterly unworthy of belief. They present the case of witnesses who have been caught in so many misstatements as to discredit their entire testimony.”

In chapter seven, Mauro defended the passages that are disputed or questioned in the modern versions. For example, he rejected the omission of Mark 16:8-20, the last half of Mark 6:11, and the word “God” in 1 Timothy 3:16. (All three of these textual corruptions appear in the NASV and the NIV either in the text itself or in a footnote.)

Mauro concluded chapter seven with these words: “Many other examples might be given of changes in the Greek Text made in deference to the two ancient Codices (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) and against the overwhelmingly preponderating testimony of Greek Mss. Versions and Fathers, changes which inflict manifest injury upon the Holy Scriptures. But the foregoing are amply sufficient to warrant the conclusion that the ‘New Greek Text’ underlying the R.V. (which is virtually that of Westcott and Hort) is vastly inferior to that of the A.V., and specifically that the witnesses whose testimony controlled the construction of the former are utterly untrustworthy.”

In chapter eight, Mauro mentions the Tercentenary Commemoration Edition of the Bible published in 1911 by Oxford Press in honor of the 300th anniversary of the King James Version. He observes that this work was done by a committee of 34 Hebrew and Greek scholars who were tasked with making “a careful scrutiny of the Text, with the view of correcting, in the light of the best modern research, such passages as are recognized by all scholars as in any measure misleading or needlessly obscure.” As a result, the Tercentenary Bible overwhelmingly confirmed the King James Version and rejected a whopping 98% of the changes introduced by the English Revisers of 1881. The Preface to the Tercentenary Bible concludes that THE “CONTINUED CONFIDENCE OF THE CHURCH UNIVERSAL THROUGHOUT ENGLISH-SPEAKING LANDS IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS SEASONED AND MATURE.” Mauro agreed with this judgment without hesitation and added that he believed the King James Version would be the chief English Bible “to the end.”

In chapter ten, Mauro rejects the Westcott-Hort textual theories. In the first sentence of this chapter, MAURO DESCRIBES HIS OWN BOOK AS “UNCOMPROMISINGLY CONDEMNATORY” OF THE REVISED VERSION OF 1881. That is how Mauro himself characterizes his position toward the Revised Version, which is certainly contrary to the claim made by Bob Jones University Press.

Mauro concludes thusly:

“What shall we then say to these things? Shall we accept the R.V. (either the English or American) as a substitute for the A.V.? That question, we take it, has been settled by the almost unanimous rejection of the modern Versions.

“But can we profitably avail ourselves of the R.V. for any purpose? The conclusion to which the facts constrain the writer of these pages is that, conceding that there are improvements (and perhaps many) in the R.V., nevertheless, THE GREEK TEXT UPON WHICH IT IS BASED IS SO CORRUPT, THAT IT IS NOT SAFE TO ACCEPT ANY READING WHICH DIFFERS FROM THAT OF THE A.V. UNTIL THE READER HAS ASCERTAINED THAT THE CHANGE IN QUESTION IS SUPPORTED BY PREPONDERATING TESTIMONY.

“Furthermore, in the important matter of the work of Translation we believe it to be the consensus of the best opinion that, in this feature also, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO THAT OF 1881.

“And finally, as regards style and composition, THE ADVANTAGE IS SO GREATLY WITH THE OLD VERSION THAT IT WOULD BE LITTLE SHORT OF CALAMITY WERE IT TO BE SUPPLANTED BY THE R.V.” (Philip Mauro, Which Version, 1924).
________________________

It is obvious that Philip Mauro rejected the position that is promoted today by the Bob Jones University Greek department and that he stood much closer to many of the contemporary King James Bible defenders than to the position defended by BJU and Central Theological Seminary and Detroit Theological Seminary, etc.

BJU’S MISREPRESENTATION OF “KING JAMES ONLY”

BJU Press not only misrepresented Mauro, it misrepresented contemporary defenders of the King James Bible. In the aforementioned Introduction, BJU Press says: “Some contemporary authors have used his [Mauro’s] name and his written defense of the King James Version to defend their own King-James-only position. Mr. Mauro’s frequent use of the Revised Version gives the lie to the claims of those who would misrepresent Mr. Mauro’s position as being in line with the King-James-only heresy.”

We have already seen who is giving the lie about what!

It is true that some contemporary defenders of the King James Bible have used Mauro’s writings. To my knowledge, David Otis Fuller was the first to do this in the latter half of the 20th century. Dr. D. O. Fuller (1903-1988) was an influential and highly respected Fundamentalist leader. He obtained the Master of Divinity degree at Princeton, and was honored with a Doctor of Divinity degree by Dallas Theological Seminary. He pastored the prominent Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, for 40 years (1934-74). While there, he founded the Grand Rapids Baptist Institute, which later became the Grand Rapids Baptist Bible College (today it is called Cornerstone College). Fuller co-founded the Children’s Bible Hour radio program in 1942 and for 33 years was its chairman. For 52 years Fuller was on the board of the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism. He was on the Council of 14 in the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches. Fuller published between fifteen to twenty books.

When he first began investigating the Bible version issue for himself in the 1960s, Dr. Fuller came across many old books on the subject that were no longer commonly available. These included Philip Mauro’s Which Version, John Burgon’s Revision Revised, as well as works by Herman Hoskier, Joseph Philpot, Benjamin Wilkinson, Samuel Zwemer, and George Sayles Bishop, plus the works of a number of more contemporary writers, including Edward F. Hills, Terence Brown, and Wilbur Pickering. Dr. Fuller also obtained several post-graduate theses that defended the Received Text and the KJV in opposition to the modern versions. These include the following:

A Critical Examination of the Westcott-Hort Textual Theory–Alfred Martin’s dissertation to the faculty of the Graduate School of Dallas Theological Seminary, May 1951.

The Preservation of the Scriptures–Donald Brake’s dissertation to the faculty of the Department of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Theology Degree, May 1970.

An Evaluation of the Contribution of John William Burgon to New Testament Textual Criticism–Wilbur Pickering’s thesis presented to the faculty of the Department of New Testament Literature and Exegesis at the Dallas Theological Seminary in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Theology Degree, May 1968.

Dr. Fuller reprinted these works in the three books that he published on the Bible Version issue: Which Bible (1970), True or False(1973), and Counterfeit or Genuine (1975). Dr. Fuller wrote very little on the Bible version issue himself. What he did was put older works back into print so that his generation would be better able to look at all sides of the Bible version debate.

Contrary to the wild-eyed caricature that many have drawn of him, Dr. Fuller did not claim that the King James Bible was given by inspiration or that it contains some sort of advanced revelation over the Greek and Hebrew or that it could not be improved or changed. He claimed simply that it is the only existing reliable English translation of what he believed to be the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture. He did not believe the KJV has errors, but he differentiated plainly between improvements and errors.

“We do not say that the KJV does not permit of changes. There are a number that could be AND SHOULD BE made, but there is a vast difference between a change and an error” (Fuller, Is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs? nd., p. 1).

Dr. Fuller’s position on Bible versions is given on pages 5 and 6 of his first book on the Bible version issue, Which Bible:

“The compiler of this book, and the able writers whom he quotes, all contend that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative word of God and that there has been a gracious exercise of the divine providence in its preservation and transmission. They are also deeply convinced that the inspired text is more faithfully represented by the Majority Text–sometimes called the Byzantine Text, the Received Text or the Traditional Text–than by the modern critical editions which attach too much weight to the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and their allies. For this reason the reader is encouraged to maintain confidence in THE KING JAMES VERSION AS A FAITHFUL TRANSLATION BASED UPON A RELIABLE TEXT” (Fuller, Which Bible? pp. 5,6).

The final eight words in that paragraph describe, in a nutshell, what David Otis Fuller believed about the King James Bible — “a faithful translation based upon a reliable text.” That is also what I believe about the King James Bible. It is what Donald Waite and Ian Paisley and Thomas Strouse and Edward Hills and Del Johnson and Don Jasmin and thousands of other contemporary KJV defenders believe. We reject Ruckmanism and such cultic ideas as versions containing advanced revelation and being given by inspiration.

Yet Bob Jones University persists in defining “King James Only” as Ruckmanism and taking every occasion to lump every defender of the King James Bible into that category. This is a good debate tactic, but it is not honest and it does not help anyone come to the truth.

This is why they can claim that Philip Mauro was not “King James Only.” Even after being confronted with the facts in my report, they will doubtless counter that Mauro believed the Revised Version contained some improvements over the KJV and therefore he was not — yea, could not possibly have been — “King James Only.”

But as we have seen, Philip Mauro’s position was very close to the position of David Otis Fuller, one of the fathers of contemporary King James Bible defense.

And there is no doubt that Mauro plainly and publicly rejected the position on Bible versions that is promoted today by Bob Jones University.

In 2000 I published “Old Time Fundamentalists Who Defended the King James Bible.” (This is available in a multi-media video format.) Few men have researched the history of the Bible version debate more extensively than I have or have a larger library on that subject than I do. From my research, I picked out three examples of the many that could be given of old time fundamentalists who defended the King James Bible. These were Benjamin Franklin Dearmore (1897-1969), a Baptist leader in Texas; William Aberhart (1878-1943) in western Canada; and Philip Mauro of New York City. Mauro was definitely a fundamentalist leader. He contributed at least two articles to The Fundamentals, the series of books from which the name “fundamentalist” was derived. And he was also a defender of the King James Bible and an opponent of modern textual criticism.

CONCLUSION

I am very sad about all of this. Though I have never had a personal association with Bob Jones University and though I cannot agree with all of their positions, I have never considered them an enemy. I have visited the BJ campus numerous times; I many friends who are BJ grads; and I am thankful for the many good things that they stand for in these dark apostate days.

Why do they feel that they must stoop to misrepresentation and straw man tactics on the Bible text issue? Why do they attempt to make every defender of the King James Bible appear cultic in the eyes of their associates? Why not allow an open and honest debate and allow men to make their own decision on the merits of the case? It will cause division? Probably, but since when did fundamentalists take the position that unity is more important than truth? Why don’t they admit that some of their closest friends, such as Ian Paisley, are “King James Only”? If the position is cultic, then consistency would require that they break fellowship with him and others like him in their circle. The Bible says we are to “observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality” (1 Timothy 5:21).

The Bible version issue is not a secondary issue. I am convinced that to be wrong on that is to enter a path that eventually will result in apostasy. The Bible is the foundation for everything we believe and do. Thus the Bible text and version issue is of the very highest importance.

Just take a look at those who defend the modern versions. That vast group includes the Roman Catholic Church, the theological liberals, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists, the Charismatics, all of the liberal Protestant denominations yoked with the World Council of Churches, the New Evangelicals, and the Charismatics. In contrast, the King James Bible has been the Bible of the Fundamentalist movement for 80 years and certainly of the fundamental Baptist movement of the past 50 years.

The founder of Bob Jones University preached only from the King James Bible and said, “The King James Version is the best translation we have ever had” (Dr. Bob Jones, Sr., The Sword Scrapbook, 1969). Even today Bob Jones University, which has advertised itself as “the bastion of fundamentalism,” says that it uses only the King James Bible.

The change from the King James Bible to the modern versions, which is just now beginning to occur in some fundamentalist circles, is a dramatic change that will bring many associated changes. I am convinced that this step will lead to New Evangelicalism and, for some, even to Modernism.

This I believe with all of my heart. You cannot maintain a fundamentalist position for long without a dogmatic, absolute “thus saith the Lord.” It cannot be done. If a man has confidence in one Bible he can stand dogmatically and immovably. If, though, he believes that the Word of God is contained mystically among all of the texts and versions and only partially in any one, he begins to lose his dogmatism. He cannot preach the Bible with the same sort of conviction as the first man.

If I am wrong, prove it graciously with facts and with the Word of God, instead of using cheap tactics in an attempt to blacklist me and thus to keep me from receiving a proper hearing.

Philip Mauro’s book Which Version? is available at the Way of Life Literature web site.

Table of Patriarchs from Adam to Great Flood

 

Genesis Chapter 5
Year of Man
B.C.
Universe created . . . Adam and Eve created
1
4046
Adam’s age at birth of Seth
130
3916
Add Seth’s age at birth of Enos (105)
235
3811
Add Enos’ age at birth of Cainan (90)
325
3721
Add Cainan’s age at birth of Mahalaleel (70)
395
3651
Add Mahalaleel’s age at birth of Jared (65)
460
3586
Add Jared’s age at birth of Enoch (162)
622
3424
Add Enoch‘s age at birth of Methuselah (65)
687
3359
Add Methuselah’s age at birth of Lamech (187)
874
3172
Add Lamech’s age at birth of Noah (182)
1056
2990
Add Noah’s age at the time of the Flood (600)
1656
2390

 

Adam through Seth

 

Adam lived 130 years and begot Seth 130
Adam lived another 800 years after Seth was born add . . . 800
All the days that Adam lived were 930 years: and he died total is . . . 930
Seth lived 105 years and begat Enos 105
Seth lived another 807 years after Enos was born add . . . 807
All the days that Seth lived were 912 years: and he died. total is . . . 912

 

Table of Patriarchs from Flood to Abraham.

 

Genesis chapter 11
Year of Man
B.C.

The Great Flood
1656
2390
Shem begets Arphaxad 2 years after Flood
1658
2388
Add age of Arphaxad at birth of Salah (35)
1693
2353
Add age of Salah at birth of Eber (30)
1723
2323
Add age of Eber at birth of Peleg (34)
1757
2289
Add age of Peleg at birth of Reu (30)
1787
2259
Add age of Reu at birth of Serug (32)
1819
2227
Add age of Serug at birth of Nahor (30)
1849
2197
Add age of Nahor at birth of Terah (29)
1878
2168
Add Terah’s age at birth of Abram (130)
2008
2038
Abraham born
2008
2038

 

 In his definitive biography of Philip Mauro, Gordon P. Gardiner has furnished us with some fascinating information concerning this great man of God. Mr. Gardiner begins the biography with a quotation from Philip Mauro himself; “I came to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ on May 24th, 1903, being then in my forty-fifth year. I did not at that time fully understand what had happened to me on that day, and only learned subsequently, through the study of the Scriptures, that, by the grace of God through faith in his Son Jesus Christ, I had then been quickened (Eph. 2:5), and had passed from death unto life (John 5:24).” With these simple words, Philip Mauro, a member of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States and one of the foremost patent lawyers of his day, began his “Testimony” of what to him was the most important event in his life.

     Steadily rising in his profession, Mr. Mauro was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States on April 21, 1892. Five days later, he began to argue his first case before that august body. One of his most notable cases was that in which he represented the Boyden Brake Company against Westinghouse Air Brake Company. “In this case,” so the Columbia Record states, “for the first time, the Supreme Court of the United States was unable after two full presentations to reach a decision and asked for a third argument. Mr. Mauro was employed in the final presentation, and his clients, the Boyden Company, won the case and are understood to have received upward of $1,200,000 as a result.

     His repeated successes in courts of law, coupled with his extensive knowledge, gave Mr. Mauro great standing with the United States Patent Office. Consequently, he was unanimously chosen by the examiners of the Patent Office to be “their instructor in a class organized for the purpose of studying the practice of the Federal Courts in conducting patent cases and was urged to continue the work long after the other demands upon his time made this impossible.”

     His briefs, too, could not but gain recognition, for they were “models of accuracy, conciseness, and literary finish. ” As such, they were “frequently used by judges in the text of their decisions.”

     After his marriage, Mr. Mauro attended the Episcopalian Church of the Epiphany of which he had become a “member and communicant at the age of sixteen and had been for many years thereafter quite a regular attendant.” During this time Mr. Mauro “heard innumerable sermons,” but for all this, he later confessed, he “was as ignorant as any Hottentot concerning God’s one and only way of salvation.” Less and less as the years passed, did he attend the church’s services. Instead, he would go to the golf course.

He was “striving (so earnestly, yet so hopelessly) by the aid of the rushlight of reason alone to perceive the meanings of life and the relations of man to the order of things whereof he is a part.” “Having become a thoroughgoing rationalist (and being no more irrational than the generality of those who assume that self-flattering title),” Mr. Mauro continued, “I took the ground that it was possible to believe only what could be made evident to the physical senses.”

“The succeeding eight years were marked by a decided drift away from all spiritual matters, ending in a lapse into utter indifference thereto, and an entire absorption in business affairs and other temporalities and worldliness.” His general attitude toward life in these years is best described in his own words: “There was no aspiration in my soul beyond the gratification of self; and all the exertion which I was putting forth had for its sole object the acquisition and accumulation of means for ministering to that gratification through life ….

“The things which I valued, such as reputation, the good opinion of men, success in business enterprises, and the like, engrossed my time and thought, and beyond these there was no subject in view …. So I followed others in the attempt to find distraction in the gaieties, amusements, and excitements of a godless, pleasure-seeking world, among whom I was as godless as any ….

“Certainly I was thoroughly discontented, desperately unhappy, and becoming more and more easy prey to gloomy thoughts and vague, indefinable apprehensions … . Life had no meaning, advantage, purpose, or justification; and the powers of the much-vaunted intellect seemed unequal to the solution of the simplest mysteries. The prospect before me was unspeakably dark and forbidding.”

Such was Philip Mauro’s condition when “one never-to- be-forgotten evening, in New York City,” in the spring of 1903, he tells, “I strolled out in my usual unhappy frame of mind, intending to seek diversion at the theatre. This purpose carried me as far as the lobby of a theatre on Broadway and caused me to take my place in the line of ticket purchasers. But an unseen hand turned me aside, and the next thing that I remember was a very faint sound of singing which came to my ears amid the noises in Eighth Avenue, near 44th Street, fully a mile away from the theatre.

“There is no natural explanation of my being attracted by, and of my following up, that sound. Nevertheless, I pushed my way into the building (a very plain, unattractive affair, bearing the sign ‘Gospel Tabernacle’), whence the sound emanated, and found myself in a prayer meeting. I took a seat and remained through the meeting.

“I was not much impressed by the exercises, and in fact was not at all in sympathy with what transpired. What did, however, make an impression upon me was the circumstance that, as I was making my way to the door after the meeting, several persons greeted me with a pleasant word and a shake of the hand, and one inquired about my spiritual state.”

The fact was that the friendliness shown to Philip Mauro was “the only impression which was really favorable” which he carried away with him from that service. And but for this “interest in and care of th@ stranger he would probably not have gone to that place again.” It was because of his own experience in this respect that Mr. Mauro regarded it of the highest importance for Christians and for ushers, in particular, to make visitors to gospel services “feel at home.”

In the following days after this first visit, unaccountably but irresistibly, Mr. Mauro was repeatedly drawn back to the Gospel Tabernacle of which A.B. Simpson, founder and president of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, was then the pastor. “No natural explanation will account for the fact that I was constrained to return to a place so utterly devoid of attractions and so foreign to all my natural tastes and inclinations. The people were not in the social grade to which I had been accustomed, and I would have found nothing at all congenial in their society …. I do not-remember how many times I went to these meetings before I yielded to the Spirit’s influence, and I do not remember that I was conscious of any benefit from attending the meetings, which, from the ordinary standpoint, would have been pronounced decidedly dull.

“I did not know the nature of what was happening, for I did not believe in sudden conversions. I supposed that a change of nature, if it occurred at all, must be very gradual-an ‘evolution,’ in fact. But my ignorance of the process did not stand in the way of the mighty power of God, acting in grace, to quicken me into new life. I called upon the name of the Lord with a deep conviction of sin in my heart, and that was enough.”

Mr. Mauro later reflected, “I should have supposed that, in order to convince me of the truth of the Bible and Christianity, it would be necessary to employ the best efforts of a faculty of the profoundest theologians versed in all the arguments of sceptical philosophy, and able to furnish plausible replies to them. But God, in His wisdom, sent me to learn the way of everlasting life from a company of exceedingly plain, humble people, of little education, to whom I regarded myself as immeasurably superior in all the higher branches of knowledge. It is true that these people knew very little of what is taught in the colleges and seminaries; but they did have that knowledge which is the highest and most excellent of all ‘the KNOWLEDGE of Christ Jesus my Lord’…”

Mr. Mauro testified further. “Perhaps the most wonderful change which was manifest to my consciousness, was this, that all my doubts, questionings, scepticism, and criticism concerning God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; concerning the full inspiration, accuracy, and authority of the Holy Scriptures … ; concerning the sufficiency of Christ’s Atonement to settle the question of sin, and to provide a ground upon which God could, with perfect righteousness, forgive and justify a sinner; and concerning an assured salvation and perfect acceptance in Christ, were swept away completely…. I had no notion at all that intellectual difficulties and questioning could be removed in any way except by being answered, one by one, to the intellectual satisfaction of the person in whose mind they existed. But my doubts and difficulties were not met in that way. They were simply removed when I believed on the crucified One and accepted Him as the Christ of God, and as my personal Savior.”

When, at last, Philip Mauro joined his family in Florence, Italy, they found him to be a changed man. For one thing, he was doing something they had never seen him do before. Laughingly one of the girls said, “Look! Father’s reading the Bible!” That, they all thought, was the best joke in the family of recent date!

Mr. Mauro offered no explanation for the change in him. In fact, “through timidity and fear of comment and ridicule,” he tried to keep to himself as much as possible and to conceal the reason for the very evident difference. Whatever the reason, his wife and daughters were soon to find out that it was no joke, but a living reality, a way of life which was to revolutionize the entire family.

Margaret, his oldest daughter, was subject to periodic spells of deep depression such as he himself had known for so long. Now she was in one of these awful states. Deeply he sympathized with her and longed that she should be set free, as he had been, for since his conversion, his “old condition of mental distress and unrest” had passed away so completely that he could hardly recall it.

“You can get up and harangue a bench of old judges when you wouldn’t face your wife and daughters,” was the word that came into his soul and finally goaded him into speaking just a word for Jesus.

At last, seeing the suffering of his beloved daughter and realizing he knew the remedy which would cure her, he felt “compelled” to “open his lips” and to “preach Christ for the first time.”

With his knees shaking and his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth, Mr. Mauro fearfully ventured into the room of his suffering daughter and simply said, “Margaret, what you need is the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Her father later recalled, “What effort the delivery of this sermon cost me cannot be described, and after that utterance, the preacher had not another word to say, and the only visible result was a very awkward and constrained silence. Yet this simple, clumsily-given testimony, together with some verses of Scripture read at random, were used by the Spirit of God to quicken another dead soul.”

Back in New York City, Mr. Mauro returned to the place of his spiritual birth, the Gospel Tabernacle, and attended the meetings there regularly. “At one of these,” recalled Mr. Mauro, “where saints were seekir g a deeper experience of the grace and power of God (all of which was strange and unintelligible to me in my utter ignorance of spiritual things), my attention was drawn to a man, poorly dressed, and evidently in humble circumstances, who was kneeling in the aisle a little in front of me. He seemed in great distress of mind, and my pity was so awakened that I leaned forward, and, with a vague notion of expressing sympathy, whispered something in his ear. Without turning his head to see who was endeavoring to comfort him, he uttered just these four words, ‘You are a smoker.’

     “That was all, but it was enough. Never did a shot go straighter to the mark or produce a more immediate result. In a flash, I saw that smoking was unbecoming a child of God; and I was enabled without a moment’s hesitation to say, ‘No, I was a smoker, but am one no longer.’ And this I must have spoken in the power of the Spirit; for it was the truth. That instant I ceased to be a smoker. My soul escaped ‘as a bird out of the snare of the fowler.’ . . . I had been enslaved by it, as I found when, under the stimulus of impressive warnings from my physician, I endeavored to break the chain. In the daily routine of my life in those days, the first act on rising was to light a cigar or cigarette; and from then to bed-time, it was only when at meals (and not always then) or in places where smoking was not permitted that I was not indulging in the practice.”

     The very fact that a materialistic, scientific lawyer of such high reputation as Mr. Mauro had become such an earnest Christian and such an able advocate of  Christianity, both by his pen and public addresses, caused him to be sought for increasingly as a speaker at Bible conferences and in Christian circles generally.

     Perhaps one of the most important occasions where his legal help was requisitioned was in connection with the famous Tennessee-Scopes trial in 1925.

     True, William Jennings Bryan, the “silver-tongued” orator, thrice Democratic nominee for President of the United States, devout Christian and popular Bible teacher, was retained by the State of Tennessee to defend its law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in its public schools. The brief or argument which Bryan used, however, and thereby won the case, was prepared by Philip Mauro. This was a great victory inasmuch as the defense attorney was none other than Clarence Darrow, the brilliant and successful criminal lawyer.

     And if others did not forget Mauro’s legal ability, neither did he forget his former business and legal associates. These he had faithfully and personally witnessed to after his conversion and fervently prayed that they, as he had been, might be brought out of darkness into light. One of the most famous of these was Thomas A. Edison.

     As successful patent counsel for the Columbia Phonograph Company, Philip Mauro had repeated encounters with this wizard, who was regarded as “one of the company’s most formidable antagonists,” in the extensive litigation involving patents. Despite the fact that Mr. Mauro was Edison’s legal opponent and invariably his victor, Edison evidently retained his respect for him personally as well as for his intellect, for when in 1926 Mr. Mauro wrote Edison, “giving him a personal testimony as to the peace of mind and conscience that had come to him through trusting in Jesus Christ, the result was an invitation to visit Mr. Edison at his laboratory in Orange, New Jersey.” When the two met on October 29, 1926, they had not seen each other for about twenty years.

     The story of their interview is best told be Mr. Mauro himself as printed in The Last Hour, edited and published by himself. “Mr. Edison is now in his eightieth year; but his mind is evidently as keen as ever. All his life his attitude regarding things not seen- God, the human soul, life hereafter, etc.- has been severely skeptical. But now, in the sunset of his days, he has undertaken the investigation of those great matters, with a desire to know the truth, but with insistence upon PROOF. ‘I want FACTS,’ was the way he expressed the attitude of his mind. Owing to Mr. Edison’s deafness, it was difficult for the editor to speak to him. But it was better so; and the promise was given that he would read attentively a short letter on the matter discussed.” This Mr. Mauro wrote “the day following the interview.”

“Dear Mr. Edison,

“It was a real pleasure to see you and hear your voice again. Moreover, the matters touched upon in our conversation of yesterday gave me much to think about.
“You want facts. So do I. A reasonable man’s belief should rest upon nothing less substantial than well-attested facts. So here is a fact for you:
“God (whom you reverently call “the Supreme Intelligence”) loves you and wants your love in return. My visit to you and this letter are evidence of it, though, of course, not sufficient to prove to your satisfaction either that God is, or that He cares for Thomas Edison. But wait.
“Another fact: God is Light.
“How do I know? I know only in the way that light can be known- by experience. For the nature of light is such that it admits of being known only in the way of experimental knowledge. I am saying this to the man who has had more to do with the development of artificial light than any other who ever lived in this dark world, and who probably knows more about light, in a practical way, than any other. How then could the existence and the nature of light be demonstrated to one who had been shut up all his life in a dark cell? It could be done only in some way such as by opening a window; and then the light would enter, and prove itself.
“This I say, because you are seeking a solution of the mystery of life and the soul by the way of analogies form nature. Very good. Much truth can be got in that way; as Butler, in his famous Analogy has abundantly shown. I hope you will continue your investigation, and in your customary thorough-going fashion; for it is the most important you ever undertook. And in this connection I call you attention to a clear and pertinent analogy; the point of which is that the proof you demand can be had only by experiment. For myself, I know that God is Light, and that He sheds light in the heart that is opened to Him, because I put the matter to the test of experience twenty-three years ago, and have enjoyed the consciousness of spiritual light ever since. Moreover, my experience is that of millions of others.
“Let me remind you that light will not force its way into a place that is tightly closed; but that, if only a tiny chink be opened, in it comes, proving itself.
“Likewise Christ, who is ‘the true Light,’ does not force Himself into the chambers of the soul against the human will. For the nature of the matter is such that, like the smell of a violet, the color of a sunset, or the taste of honey, it can only be known by experiment. The ‘Good Book’ that you asked me not to quote, says, ‘Come and see,’ ‘Taste and see.’ Is not that strictly scientific?
“You have been truly doing God’s work in helping to enlighten the darkness of nature. But there is a spiritual darkness too. So follow the analogy, and it will lead you straight to the truth, and to the solution of the whole mystery of human existence.

“With sincere affection and respect,
(Signed) Philip Mauro.”

     Is it this man, Philip Mauro, with his keen brilliant mind so logical and so incisive who has written the book, Which Version? Authorized or Revised, on one of the most complex and intricate subjects any mind could ever study. The following is written for the instruction and enlightenment of the average layman. Mr. Mauro readily admitted that he was not a theological or linguistic scholar, but he has demonstrated in this book the fact that any layman who applies himself assiduously to such a subject can secure an overall picture of just what has gone on over the past century since 1881 by way of “holding down the truth in unrighteousness” and perverting it to suit the whims and fancies of scholars who refuse to hold the Bible for what it claims to be; namely, the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God.

Date: 05 Sep 2003
Time: 06:38:49

Mauro was NOT a preterist. He was a futurist but not a dispensationalist; his writings make it clear that he was, mistakenly, still awaiting the second coming of Christ.

[TDD: You are correct!  That is why at the top it says “Preterist Commentaries by Historicists,” because he was most definitely a historicist]

Date: 06 Nov 2003
Time: 13:20:01

The heart of preterism is the (mistaken) belief that Christ’s second advent occurred in a day and hour (that cannot be specifically identified) during the AD 70 destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Mauro’s commentaries make it crystal clear that he disagreed completely with that assertion. For example, Mauro wrote that in AD 30 “Christ had disowned the temple at Jerusalem (Mt. 23:38) calling it ‘your house’ AND HENCEFORTH IT IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS THE HOUSE OF GOD” (The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, Chapter VII). On balance, Mauro’s views more properly would be included under the heading “Anti-Preterist Commentaries by Historicists.”

Date: 08 Feb 2004
Time: 11:37:41

The question that I have in my mind regarding the last Article, just above this comment box. The statement: “But it is simply an impossibility that the prophecy that the seed of Israel should never “cease from being a nation” should apply to the natural seed of Jacob; for they have ceased from being a nation since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.” I would like to know if Philip Mauro would have continued to hold that belief in 1948 when Israel became a nation again? It’s events like these that stump me when trying to embrace a preterist viewpoint.

Date: 08 Apr 2004
Time: 20:42:27

The forming of “Israel” in 1948, or whenever has nothing to do with the true Israel. Mauro wrote a book titled “The Hope of Israel – what is it?” in which he fully explains the biblical explanations of Paul, and many other both NT and OT writings that show that the true Israel is the body of Christianity, and the only Israellites who accept Christ will be part of the true Israelites (church) The teaching concerning modern day Israel is a terrible misconception and resurrection of the misconceptions of the Jews which caused them to miss the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. His writings are right on.

Date: 04 May 2004
Time: 09:30:52

It is difficult, at first, to distinguish that the geo-political state of Israel today is not “the Israel of God” NOR any other “Israel”, but has merely mis-appropriated the name. Confirmation of this can be found in the best Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox JEWISH opinions. Those interested can check Neturei Karta, Jewsnotzionists, and Jewsagainstzionism websites. The best article I know of that identifies the true Israel is Pastor Cohen Reckhart’s article, “Who is the Israel of God”. He is an futurist “Jesus only” Apostolic, whose other beliefs I may disagree with, but that particular article is the best I have read, and most enlightening.

Date: 10 Jan 2005
Time: 11:22:25

For the last year I have been in God’s skillfull guiding into my whole thinking has been changed. For every i I had and every t that I that thought was crossed. For all of my ducks that was in a row. He erased the dots on my i’s He uncross all of my t’s. and shot every duck that I have. So now I have started all over, the history, the Hope of Israel, the church, the Apostolic mission. The plan That God had intended. it is my life now.

Date: 22 Apr 2005
Time: 12:53:01

He has a way of doing that !

Date: 22 Apr 2005
Time: 16:55:11

Merci de nous fournir gracieusement les écrits de cet homme qui était visiblement éclairé du Saint-Esprit de Dieu pour découvrir les écritures dans leur forme réelle. Autrement dit : La Vérité . Aujourd’hui, le monde évangélique a subi de grands dommages. L’apostasie est insidieuse et sournoise, tel que décrite par la Parole. Cela est un travail réussi de Satan pour abolir la Croix, mais c’est dû aussi à la façon trop superficielle de l’homme en général de lire et d’étudier pour comprendre où est la vérité , faute de rechercher activement avec son coeur le Seigneur de gloire , l’homme croyant avoir tout compris s’est empréssé de se donner une dénomination croyant chacun posséder la vérité. Il s’en est suivi la grande confusion que nous connaissons aujourd’hui où tout le monde voudrait réparer les brèches du mur en se regroupant dans un oecuménisme de perdition fatale pour ceux qui y participent. Que Dieu vous bénisse et vous soutienne dans votre travail. Pour Sa gloire et celle de Jésus-Christ le sauveur. ps: je suis désolé de ne pas pouvoir écrire en anglais. De même je suis obligé de lire les articles avec la méthode de “translation”. Peut-être pouvez-vous m’indiquer si il exsiste des ouvrages en français quelque part de Philip Mauro ? Merci à vous tous et fraternité dans Le Seigneur Jésus.

Date: 16 Nov 2005
Time: 09:00:53

If Christ’s second advent took place in 70 a.d., then the prophecies of Daniel 12:1-2, and those of the Revelation, regarding the resurrection, as well as Christ,s own admonitions of his Reign here on earth, including that of a resurrected King David , ruling with Christ in Jerusalem, as well as the resurrected apostles, visibly present, and ruling with Christ in Jerusalem, must have been a reality immediatly after 70 A.D., and still be so today.

Since the destruction of the temple , and the destruction of Jerusalem, was LITERAL, back in 70 A.D., all these other happenings spoken of by Christ, also must be literal. I think you guy’s have one big problem to solve.

Rev. Morgan Sorensen.

[Consider Christ’s statement: “my kingdom is not of this world”; and that of Peter “Therefore (David) being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ”; and Paul “But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.”  The big problem is looking for things in the Old Jerusalem which are revealed to be in the New Jerusalem.]

Date: 07 Feb 2006
Time: 00:29:27

Doesn’t the greek quote Christ as saying ‘My kingdom is not of this world now’?

Date: 07 Dec 2006
Time: 06:44:03

well….
If I lived 150years ago some of these ideas could to a degree be justified, but as for now…
I believe Jesus is shaking his head and asking :
Can`t they still descern the times and seasons?
Every Blessing
Mr.Jan M. Solheim,Norway

Date: 08 Jun 2007
Time: 09:20:08

I liked this article and some of these comments as paul mauro wrote his writings are right on. As far as the nation of Isreal being God’s people right now how could that be possible there is no more ethnic jew. God destroyed national Isreal at 70 AD not his chosen Isreal. Remember Jesus words and when you see these things take place flee to the mountains. If this were not true then there are two comings of Christ one for the nation of Isreal and one for his church . Thanks !

Date: 10 Sep 2005
Time: 19:12:04

Mr. Gordon Gardiner is better known for his biographical work on the life of Martha Wing Robinison in his book quite appropriately entitled RADIANT GLORY.

If you can push yourself beyond the historical background contained in the first 3-4 chapters this is a life changing book!

Both may be obtained from

Bread of Life/ Ridgewood Church
444 Harman Street
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11237
USA

Date: 23 Oct 2005
Time: 18:16:39

An alternative address for ordering:

Ridgewood Pentecostal Church
Attn: Mrs. Tessie Knaupp
128 Mayfair Ave
W. Hempstead NY
11552-1514
U.S.A

tknaupp@juno.com for information

Date: 17 Aug 2006
Time: 10:11:20

I just wish I KNEW the views whch are the most TRUE to the WORD OF GOD !
THere are as many opinons as there are writers on the subjects. Prophecy—-the KINGDOM— Didpensations—and so on–and on.
Sara

Date: 24 Sep 2006
Time: 02:28:33

Sara, how would you define the kingdom of darkness? Does it have a distinct geographical location? No. I think you would agree that it is of a spiritual domain and its evil influence can be visably seen. You see its effect. And so it is with the kingdom of God. It is not a kingom like that of Pilate. It does not come with outward observation. Only those who are born from above can see and enter into this realm that is ruled by God. Only they are its citizens. It is characterized by the righteousness and peace and joy brought by a Spirit- by the Holy Spirit. It is the basis upon which people were to repent “repent for the kingdom…” Jesus preached “the gospel of the kingdom…” With its proclaimation things happened! Please note that it was the theme of Jesus’ parables (which comprise the bulk of the gospel accounts and Jesus’ teaching). And these parables were to reveal and to conceal the truth of it. Interesting to note that the disciples had a Jewish-type of literature.

Andre M.
p.s. Consider Madame Guyon’s book Of the Coming of the Kingdom of God at the above internet link (http://davidkeames.googlepages.com)

Date: 24 Apr 2009
Time: 20:04:06

Back in the 80s I bought every book I could find by Mauro – great writer / expositor and a KJV guy to boot. Great to see his books lovingly archived. Thanks – MWR

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *