Some Observations
on the Baha'i World Faith (page 1 of 3)
The Baha’i World Faith at a cursory glance appears to be the perfect model
of the postmodern universal religion. Their appeal is to the collective
brotherhood of all mankind, a “One World Order” type of creed, which
includes spiritual, social and governmental development of the individual and
society. Although they do not have any women in their highest governing body,
the Universal House of Justice, the BWF even professes a total equality of the
genders. On the surface the BWF seems to be the ideal for man’s future, but in
actuality it is just another attempt to degrade the idea of a holy and just God,
who requires punishment for sin and man’s inability to supply his own
salvation from that punishment. They join the postmodern role call of
detractors, including many liberal Christians, Mormons who claim hell is only
for the “sons of perdition” and apostate former LDS, and the Jehovah’s
Witnesses who assert there is no hell, but eternal “destruction” for those
who don’t believe.
In its attempt to appeal to Christians, the BWF professes an acceptance of
the divinity and role of Christ, but then “spiritualize,” redefine and
minimize them. They also redefine every term in the Christian lexicon having to
do with: the nature of God, of man, of salvation--including sin, the devil, and
hell; and the nature of heaven as a progressive state open to all, even those
who die having denied Jesus as their savior. The BWF has turned the Biblical
presentations and even the words of Jesus and His disciples into nothing more
than symbolic, figurative pictures. They assert that Jesus has returned in the
person of Baha’u’llah, who has now interpreted the Scriptures the way He had
originally intended. They claim Jesus Christ as one of their “Manifestations”
of God, no better or worse than any of the others, but affirm that only they can
truly interpret Christ’s parabolic words and the meanings of the other
Biblical Scriptures. Their postmodern, universalistic theology is unbiblical,
and totally antithetical toward orthodox, historic Christianity.
Is Baha’u’llah the Return of Jesus?
In the mid-nineteenth century Mirza Husayn Ali, a Persian nobleman, founded
the Baha’i World Faith, assumed the title of Baha’u’llah (“Glory of God”)
and claimed:
. . .with power and authority. . .to the Christians of the world that He
fulfills the Bible’s sacred promises concerning the Return of Christ: “Jesus,
the Spirit of God...hath once more, in my person, been made manifest unto you.”[1]
Followers of the Gospel, behold the gates of heaven are flung open. He that
had ascended unto it is now come. Give ear to His voice calling over land and
sea, announcing to all mankind the advent of this Revelation—a Revelation
through the agency of which the Tongue of Grandeur is now proclaiming: “Lo,
the sacred pledge hath been fulfilled, for He, the Promised Ones is come!”[2]
He also wrote in a letter sent to Pope Pius IX:
O Pope! Rend the veils asunder. He who is the Lord of Lords is come
overshadowed with clouds, and the decree hath been fulfilled by God, the
Almighty, the Unrestrained...He, verily, hath again come down from Heaven even
as He came down from it the first time...Beware lest any name debar thee from
God. . ..[3]
Beware lest any celebration hinder you from the Celebrated and worship hinder
you from the Worshipped One! Behold the Lord, the Mighty, the All-Knowing! He
hath come to minister to the life of the world, and for the uniting of whatever
dwelleth therein. Come, O ye people, to the Dawning –place of Revelation!
Tarry not, even for an hour! Are ye learned in the Gospel, and yet are unable to
see the Lord of glory? This beseemeth you not, O learned concourse! Say then, if
ye deny this matter, by what proof do you believe in God? Produce your proof. .
.. [4]
These astounding assertions and many other claims are recorded in various
writings by the authors of the religion Baha’u’llah founded, the Baha’i
World Faith (henceforth BWF). These writers include Abdu’l-Baha, the founder’s
son and official spokesperson, Shoghi Effendi, the “Guardian of the Faith,”
Gary L. Matthews, William Sears, J.E. Esslemont, and Michael Sours and William
Hatcher. It would appear their primary intent is to offer biblical proofs and
logical arguments to substantiate Baha’u’llah’s declaration found in
Matthews’ He Cometh with Clouds: A Baha’i View of Christ’s Return:
Many Christians, considering Baha’u’llah’ s claim for the first time,
understandably find it difficult to accept that “the Lord of Lords is come.”
This book is an effort to address their concerns. It explores the relationship
between Christ and Baha’u’llah in light of the Bible’s teachings
concerning the Second Coming.[5]
Matthews and the other BWF authors attempt systematically to validate the
Baha’i proposition that “the Christ” is a type of divine being they call a
“Manifestation of God” who periodically takes on a human form and comes to
earth to explain God’s truth for that contemporary generation or dispensation.
This proposition seems to have three main objectives: (1) to reduce the unique
nature, person and role of Jesus Christ to a mere “Manifestation of God,”
one of many such “Divine mirror images of God.” These include: Abraham,
Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha, Krishna and Mohammed, and “the Bab,” (2) to show
that “the Christ” of Judaism and Christianity, “the Mahdi” or twelfth
Imam of Islam, the “ninth Avatar of Vishnu” of the Hindus, “the Maitraya
Buddha” of the Mahayana Buddhists, “Shah Bahram” of the Zoroastrians, and
“the Prophet” of Moses—in essence the “…Promised One of all these
Prophets, the Divine Manifestation in Whose era the reign of peace will actually
be established”[6]-- appeared in 1844 in the person of Baha’u’llah, and
(3) to elevate Baha’u’llah to the role of “Supreme Manifestation” as the
latest and most correct of all the Manifestations in God’s continuing
revelation since he is the latest and greatest appearance of “the Christ.”
This universal appeal of the BWF serves several purposes, including making it
one of the world’s fastest growing independent religions. The BWF pamphlet
titled Christianity & the Baha’i Faith states:
In just over 100 years, the Baha’i Faith has become the second most
widespread of the world’s independent religions. Embracing more than five
million members from at least 2100 ethnic, racial and tribal groups, it is quite
likely the most diverse organized body of people on the planet.
According to BWF author William Hatcher, “The Baha’i Faith is perhaps
unique in that it unreservedly accepts the validity of the other great faiths.”[7]
The founders of the world’s great religions are all purveyors of an equal and
valid salvation for all mankind and Baha’u’llah as the “supreme
Manifestation” upholds and synthesizes all of them as the return of Christ for
this dispensation. In analyzing the BWF position, the purpose of this study is
to demonstrate that its stance is illogical, contradictory, and totally alien to
Christian orthodoxy. We will attempt to show how the BWF’s endeavor to
evangelize members of the major world religions, especially Christians,
demonstrates that their methodology becomes scriptural and doctrinal
manipulation and abuse. The BWF attempts to appeal to Christians through
postmodern relativistic theology. It is anti-biblical, since it redefines or
renders symbolic every biblical prophecy, promise, definition or implication
regarding the return of Jesus Christ and His role in the Kingdom of God. Francis
J. Beckwith points out in See the Gods Fall:
The Baha’is believe that there is no final, complete, or finished Word of
God. They believe that there is no absolute objective standard of religious
truth. The late leader of the faith,
Shoghi Effendi (d.1957), writes, “The fundamental principle enunciated by
Baha’u’llah...is that religious truth is not absolute, but relative...”
[8]
According to Beckwith the problem with this statement is that it is
self-refuting. To state that all religious truth is relative is itself a
statement of absolute religious truth.
Besides being relativistic and virtually “anti-literal” regarding other
religions’ sacred writings, the BWF borrows a page from the Gnostics in an
effort to adapt the beliefs of these various religions to fit its own
presuppositions. One must understand the BWF technique of relegating scriptures
and resulting doctrines, which disagree with theirs, to the level of “symbolic”
or “spiritualistic,” interpretations. They then claim to be the only ones
qualified to understand the symbolic meaning hidden within. They argue there
must a special-knowledge or revelation “key” to unlock the mysteries of the
Word of God and Baha’u’llah and his successors are the only possessors of
that key. Baha’u’llah adds:
As the adherents of Jesus have never understood the hidden meaning of these
words, and as the signs which they and the leaders of their Faith have expected
have failed to appear, they therefore refused to acknowledge, even until now,
the truth of those Manifestations of Holiness that have since the days of Jesus
been made manifest. They have thus deprived themselves of the outpourings of God’s
holy grace, and if the wonders of His divine utterance. Such is their low estate
in this, the Day of Resurrection![9]
An example used by ‘Abdu’l-Baha to show just how the adherents of Jesus
have no understanding of the “hidden meanings” of their own Scriptures is
the case of Adam and Eve and the origin of sin in Genesis. ‘Abdu’l-Baha
writes:
If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the
interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence
cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details,
such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how
much less of the Divinity...
We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were
attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this
arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being.
Therefore this story of Adam and Eve, who ate from the tree, and their expulsion
from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine
mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations.
Only those who are initiated into the mysteries, and those who are near the
Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the
Bible have many meanings.[10]
This writing will propose to explain and clarify how and why the BWF “symbolic/spiritual”
renderings of the Bible in general and the return of Jesus in particular are
totally without warrant. It will also attempt to answer many of the BWF claims
for its founder and for his doctrine. It will put forward a comprehensive list
of philosophical, logical and biblical reasons why Baha’u’llah cannot be the
return of Jesus Christ as promised in Matthew 24 and elsewhere. The NKJV is used
for biblical citations unless otherwise noted.
‘Jesus Returned in 1844 in the Person of Baha’u’llah’
The BWF claims that Baha’u’llah came in 1844 as a fulfillment of the
promise given by Jesus to His disciples to return, following His resurrection
and ascension into heaven, and the prophecy given to the prophet Daniel by the
Angel Gabriel:
Dan 8:13--Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him,
“How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning
the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, and the surrender of
the sanctuary and of the host that will be trampled underfoot?” (14) He said
to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be
reconsecrated.”
The BWF maintains that the Daniel prophecy gives a timeline in “prophetic
years” not days, for the ending of a period of desolation during which the
sanctuary of the “Temple” in Jerusalem was to be profaned. This period of
time according to Matthews and several other leading BWF scholars, including the
founder’s son Abdu’l-Baha, began with the edict given by King Artaxerxes to
Ezra (Ezra 7:12-26) to restore and build Jerusalem. [11] This 2,300-year period
ended, according to the BWF, in 1844, the year that the Bab, as the forerunner
of Baha’u’llah, much the same as John the Baptist was for Jesus, made his
declaration to the world that he was a Manifestation of God. To the BWF this is
one of the major proofs that Baha’u’llah is the return of Christ. Let’s
look a little closer at this assertion.
Six Main Problems with the BWF 1844 Assertion
There are many problems with the BWF timeline claim for the return of Jesus
in 1844, but six main ones stand out among the others.
Problem #1 “No One Knows the Day or the Hour”
(1) The first and most important problem is that Jesus states in Mark 13:32
no one, “not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,”
knows the time of His return, (see also Matt 24:36, 42-44, 25:13) In Acts 1:6
the disciples asked Jesus--“Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to
Israel?” He answered them--“It is not for you to know times or seasons which
the Father has put in His own authority.” So, according to Jesus, Gabriel an
angel of heaven, who relayed the prophecy of Dan 8:14, did not know the time of
Jesus’ return. So this 2,300-day time period cannot be a specific timetable
about the return of Jesus, since Gabriel as an angel did not possibly know. This
was nearly 500 years before Jesus’ statement that neither He nor the angels of
heaven, at His first coming, knew the exact time of His return. It would seem
contradictory for Jesus to claim that the angels of heaven did not know when He
would return, 500 years after an angel had told Daniel the precise year when He
would return. All Jesus would have had to say was, “Read Daniel 8 and you will
know the exact year.” But He didn’t. He told them only the Father knows the
hour, the time and the season.
BWF author Michael Sours attempts to maneuver around Mark 13:32 and in doing
so demonstrates how the BWF gives its own “symbolic” definitions to
manipulate or spiritualize Scripture to suit their purposes:
In the Kitab-i-Iqan, Baha’u’llah explains that by ‘angels’ is meant
individuals who ‘reinforced by the power of the spirit, have consumed, with
the fire of the love of God, all human traits and limitations, and have clothed
themselves with the attributes of the most exalted Beings’ [and of the
Cherubim] (this latter group is mentioned by Sours in Prophecies, p.132, but is
curiously missing in Tablet p.81 without any ellipsis or explanation.) Abdu’l-Baha
stated to a small group of Baha’is in 1912: ‘Array yourselves in the
perfection of divine virtues. I hope you may be quickened and vivified by the
breaths of the Holy Spirit. Then shall ye indeed become the angels of the heaven
whom Christ promised would appear in this Day…to gather the harvest of divine
planting.’ [12]
Logically, it appears the BWF leaders and Jesus are talking about two totally
different types of beings. The BWF makes angels into believers who are “on
fire” for the cause, and renders symbolic such biblical passages as 2 Thess
1:7-8:
(7) and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed
from heaven with His mighty angels, (8) in flaming fire taking vengeance on
those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
Obviously Paul in this passage is not saying, nor was Jesus in Mark 13:32,
“that angels signify or can refer to persons living in this world whose lives
are completely sanctified,” as Sours states.[13] Jesus said “angels in heaven” and
Paul wrote, “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty
angels” positionally and grammatically meaning they were with Him in heaven,
not people on the earth. Some commentators construe the “angels” of the
churches in the Book of Revelation to mean the pastors of those churches, but
these are churches on the earth, not called “angels in heaven.” These are
beings dwelling around the throne of God that are mentioned throughout both
testaments. Especially in regard to the Cherubim, that Sours drops from his
quote in Tablets without showing that it had been left out. Nowhere in all of
Scripture are human beings called “Cherubim.”
It is a sad statement for the Christian Church, but from the time of the
Church’s inception, as seen in the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6,
believers have attempted to set the date for Jesus’ return. The early 19th
century was no exception, and actually runs a close second to the furor at the
end of the first millennium after Christ’s death. The BWF scholars repeatedly
quote several Christian writers who apparently fell into the date-setting
predicament just before the 1844 time period. In his summation of how the entire
scholarly world was involved in this expectation of Christ’s return BWF author
William Sears names William Miller, a Baptist minister and founder of the
Millerites, as the American scholar so involved. [14] Many Christian scholars
have been highly critical of Mr. Miller’s “scholastic” findings. Sears
also concedes that even “These Bible scholars did not all agree on the exact
date, nor did they all explain the prophecies in a like manner.” [15] The late
Christian apologist Walter Martin writes:
One need only read the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to realize that Miller
was teaching in contradiction to the Word of God. Jesus said, ‘But of that day
and, hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’
(Matthew 24:36; also 24:42; 24:44; 25:13) The gospel of Mark also shows that
dates cannot be set, for in verse 33 of chapter 13 our Lord stated, ‘Take ye
heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.’ And almost His last
words to His disciples are a rebuke to those who set dates: ‘It is not for you
to know the times and seasons which the Father has put in His own power.’
(Acts 1:7). Certainly this should have been deterrent enough for William Miller
who lacked academic theological training, and his associates, but sad to say it
was not.[16]
Michael Sours attempts to solve this problem:
Jesus’ emphatic statement that no one knows this hour is therefore believed
by many to bring into question all attempts to calculate the time of Christ’s
return. It seems a direct contradiction that, on the one hand, no one knows the
hour, and on the other, many Bible scholars who interpreted Scripture indicate
the hour as the year 1844. For some who reject that the Second Advent occurred
in 1844, verse 36 appears an added confirmation that the rejection is sound. In
actuality, verse 36 should be a warning to the critics that they cannot be
certain that the predicted ‘hour’—that is 1844—was not the right hour.
To those who accept that 1844 was the ‘hour’ foretold in Scriptures, ‘no
one knows’ must at least suggest the uncertainty of human knowledge and human
interpretations of Scripture—even though they may later prove right. Scripture
therefore demands humility from the believer. The most important point is this:
no one can say with certainty what date was foretold and then assert that Christ
has failed to fulfil [sic] the promise of Scripture. Nor can the critic say with
certainty that the scholars and believers who calculated the date 1844 were
wrong.
The proof, or truth, of a Prophet is not dependent on our fallible
interpretations of Scripture but rather, is made evident through His own
perfections and divine teachings. The phrase ‘no one knows’ addresses the
arrogance of rejecting a Prophet owing to demands that Scripture be fulfilled
according to our expectations![17]
The underlying premise for Sours’ statement seems to be that since no one
knows the exact date of Christ’s return, to reject the 1844 date is both
arrogant and unfounded. To a certain extent, he is correct. Logically speaking,
since we do not know the exact date of Christ’s Second Advent, we cannot
outright reject any date in history as being the correct one. But he is
incorrect in saying that because a few people predicted the return of Christ in
1844 it is a contradiction to say that no one knows the day or the hour. If
these people used information from Gabriel, an angel who did not know the date
of Christ’s return, as the source for their information, then forced their own
interpretation on it, their findings are faulty. Gabriel did not know when
Christ would return, so his prophetic 2,300 days must have been about some other
future happening.
Regardless of one’s religious affiliation, to go directly against Christ’s
declaration that no one but the Father knows the time of His return is actually
the arrogant stand, and is tantamount to calling Jesus a liar. Although such
regarding the Return of Christ is interesting, but forcing Christ’s second
coming into a rigid and dogmatic time frame on which to build a new religion is
unbiblical and indefensible.
Problem #2 “Baha’u’llah Returned as Jesus, the Way
John the Baptist Returned as Elijah”
(2) BWF author Michael Sours claims that there are two “main opposing
Christian views” concerning the return of Jesus—the first is non-literal,
that the return:
. . . will occur, or has occurred, in a general spiritual unfolding of the
Church in the world. Christians who adhere to this view believe that many of the
prophecies use symbolic language that should be understood spiritually. The
other view holds that the same Jesus of Nazareth will return bodily and
literally out of the clouds. Christians who await Jesus to return in this manner
usually interpret prophecy literally.
The Baha’i Faith argues that some elements of both these views are correct.
Baha’is believe Christ will return as a historic and individual Person, but
not with the same body or name as that of Jesus of Nazareth. Instead, the return
of Christ will be in spirit, that is, the same divine qualities will be made
manifest once more in the world by an actual historic Person.[18]
Sours then proposes that the biblical account of Elijah’s return, as John
the Baptist, is a model of how the BWF believes Jesus was to return. He writes:
Later, the Scripture indicates that the same Elijah will return again (Mal
4:5)…John the Baptist was not was not literally the same Elijah, i.e. the
bodily return of Elijah, rather Elijah had returned in ‘spirit and power’ in
the person of John the Baptist (Luke 1:17).[19]
In regard to the relationship between Elijah and John the Baptist, there are
several points to consider: (a) More than one person possessed the “spirit and
power” of Elijah as did John the Baptist. Elisha, Elijah’s prophetic
successor prayed for a double portion of Elijah’s power and spirit and was
granted it by God—2 Kings 2:9, 15. This certainly was not the same as Elijah
himself returning? (b) We must remember that Elijah and Enoch were different
from all other men in that they never died. God took Elijah to heaven while he
was still alive according to 2 Kings 2:11. So when the people were promised
Elijah’s return, they were not expecting a re-incarnation, they were expecting
the actual flesh and bones Elijah that God had taken away physically. (c) The
real Elijah did actually appear at Jesus’ first advent when he presented
himself with Moses and Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration—Matt 17:3. So not
only did the “spirit and power” of Elijah return in the mission of John the
Baptist, but the actual physical body of that Old Testament prophet came back as
well at the first coming of Christ. (d) Jesus stated that although John came in
the spirit and power of Elijah, and Elijah did actually appear with Jesus on the
Mount, Elijah’s all-encompassing return was still future: Matt 17:11—“Indeed
Elijah is coming first and will restore all things,” most probably at the
second coming of Christ. (e) Finally, in answer to Jesus’ returning with a “new
body and name.” The full title of the last book of the New Testament is the
Revelation of Jesus Christ, taken from the wording of the first verse of the
book. It does not mention the “revelation” of any one else. The speaker in
the first chapter quoted by John in Rev 1:18 is unmistakably Jesus:
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen.
And I have the keys of Hades and Death.
continue
© 2000 Russ Williams
|
