Some Observations
on the Baha'i World Faith (page 2 of 3)
He also is quoted in Rev 2:8:
And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write, ‘These things says the
First and the Last, who was dead, and came to life.’
Rev 3:12 does state that Jesus will write on His followers His new name. All
one has to do is read further in the Book of Revelation, especially Rev 19:9-16,
to see several of Jesus’ “new names,”—the Lamb; Faithful and True (see
also Rev 3:14); Lord of Lords and King of Kings; the Word of God; and a name
which no one knows but He Himself. Nowhere among these names is the conqueror of
Revelation 19 called the “Glory of God” which is Baha’u’llah’s
self-fulfilling title. The secret name is one that only Jesus knows. The term
“glory of God” is found in numerous other places in Scripture and is not a
new “secret” name that no one knows. Most Jews and Christians know of the
“shekinah glory.” Plus, it does not say that He will come bearing a new
name! It says He will give the people who overcome (meaning those who die
without losing the faith) several new names, His God’s, the New Jerusalem
(which was to come out of heaven at the time of His naming of the followers), as
well as His new name. Baha’is are not known by any of the names listed in
Revelation.
It is a commonly held belief by many BWF members that the Bab, forerunner to
Baha’u’llah, who was shot to death in 1850 by a firing squad, is the actual
“Lamb of God” and Baha’u’llah himself is the “Promised Redeemer.”
They try to synthesize the ministries of the two men into one in an attempt to
fulfill the prophecy of Rev 5:5-13.
They claim that the Bab is the Lamb of God who takes the sealed scroll from
the hand of Baha’u’llah in Rev 5:7. There is no Biblical evidence for this
supposition and in fact it is totally impossible even with this forced
synthesis. We will deal with Rev 5:5 the “Root of David” in detail in a
later section. Simply, if one looks at Rev 22:16 there is a direct quote in the
name of Jesus, calling Himself “the Root and Offspring of David.”
What is the answer for those Baha’is who claim that the Bab is the “Lamb
of God”? Let us look at the other mentioning of the “Lamb of God” in the
New Testament and attempt to determine who is being described. John 1:29--“The
next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, ‘Behold! The Lamb of God
who takes away the sin of the world!’ ” As if some may have missed John’s
words in the first instance, he repeated the phrase the next day when he again
saw Jesus in John 1:36--“And looking at Jesus as He walked, he said, ‘Behold
the Lamb of God!’ We must note that he said the, definite article, not a,
indefinite article, that would have showed that Jesus was but one of many so
called “Lambs.”
To further support this statement we need to look at Rev 5:9 in which the
Lamb of 5:5-6, the descendant of Judah and David, is called “...worthy to take
the scroll, and open its seals; for You were slain, and have redeemed us to God
by Your blood...” The Bab was not related to Judah or David, and according to
Rev 5:5-6 it is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah, the Root of David who is called
the Lamb of God. Baha’u’llah was not this Redeemer, since He did not redeem
anyone by his blood, dying of old age and not by shedding his blood. There are
other Revelation verses pertaining to the identity of this Lamb of God who
actually shares the throne of God. (Rev 22:1, 3) Let’s look at the following:
Rev 17:14--These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome
them, for He is King of kings and Lord of lords; and those who are with Him are
called, chosen, and faithful.
So here, the conqueror from Rev 19:11-21, who is also called King of kings
and Lord of lords, is the Lamb, since there can’t be two King of kings and
Lord of lords. Next we look at,
Rev 14:1--Then I looked, and behold, a Lamb standing on Mount Zion, and with
Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His FATHER’S NAME written on
their foreheads.
Even Baha’u’llah called Jesus the Son of God, and never referred to
himself as the Son of God. In fact the BWF associates Baha’u’llah in the “station
of the Father”—
Surely the Father hath come and hath fulfilled that which you were promised
in the Kingdom of God.[20]
With regard to titles “everlasting Father,” “Prince of Peace,” Baha’u’llah
repeatedly refers to Himself as the manifestation of the Father, of whom Christ
and Isaiah spoke, whereas Christ always referred to Himself as the Son.[21]
Esslemont calls this coming of the Father, the advent of the “Supreme
Manifestation.” The Father comes, as promised in the parable of the vineyard,
to destroy the wicked husbandmen. Esslemont adds:
The Day of Judgment of which Christ speaks is evidently identical with the
coming of the Lord of Hosts, the Father, which was prophesied by Isaiah and the
other Old Testament prophets; a time of terrible punishment for the wicked, but
a time in which justice shall be established and righteousness rule, on earth as
in heaven. In the Baha’i interpretation, the coming of each Manifestation of
God is a Day of Judgment, but the coming of the supreme Manifestation of Baha’u’llah
is the great Day of Judgment for the world cycle in which we are living.[22]
We will look further into this claim of Baha’u’llah as being the Father
in a later section. It was included here to show, that Baha’u’llah was not
the Son, mentioned in Rev 14:1 as being the Lamb of God, nor the Redeemer of God’s
people in Revelation 5.
If this “Lamb of God” were the Bab, why would people have his Father’s
name written on their foreheads? We are told the saints will have Almighty God’s
name written on their foreheads—Rev 22:4. Since Jesus is the Only Son of God
(John 3:16), it must be He and not the Bab. And finally let’s look at,
Rev 21:14--Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were
the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”
This is the wall of the New Jerusalem and on it is written the names of the
Lamb’s 12 apostles. Neither the Bab nor Baha’u’llah had 12 apostles. Jesus
did. The Bab’s first 18 disciples were called “Letters of the Living.” And
the closest disciples of Baha’u’llah were called “Hands of the Cause of
God.” A “few” were chosen by Baha’u’llah during his lifetime, and
great grandson Shoghi Effendi who led the religion from 1921 to 1957 named 32
Hands of the Cause to assist him. Neither of these groups is called “apostles”
and none of them numbered 12 as did those who led the Christian church after the
death of Jesus. There are certain qualifications to be the Lamb of God, and
neither the Bab nor Baha’u’llah fits any of them in the Book of Revelation.
Before we leave this section it is very important to point out that the Bab
never mentioned Baha’u’llah as his successor. In fact, he personally named
Baha’u’llah’s half brother Mirza Yahya as the leader of the “Babi”
religion. In an apparent attempt to soften the blow of this obviously
embarrassing fact Matthews writes:
John the Baptist, though he showed great reverence towards Jesus, never
explicitly identified the Messiah of whom he said: ‘He it is, who coming after
me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose’
(John 1:27) The Bab likewise showed similar reverence towards Baha’u’llah
but likewise refrained from naming the promised Redeemer, praising Him instead
with veiled statements…[23]
Is that truly the case? Did John the Baptist fail to publicly identify Jesus
as the one whose shoelace he was unworthy to tie? Let’s look at John 1:30-34:
(30) This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred
before me, for He was before me.’ (31) I did not know Him; but that He should
be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water. (32) And John bore
witness, saying, ‘I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and He remained
upon Him. (33) I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said
to me, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is
He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” (34) And I have seen and testified that
this is the Son of God.’
From this, we can tell that John is addressing the very people he had
previously told about the identity of the One who was coming after him—the
Messiah. And also those listeners knew he was claiming that Jesus was the
Messiah, since in verse 1:41 Andrew one of John’s disciples, who later became
one Jesus’ apostles, says--“We have found the Messiah.” Matthews must look
elsewhere for his support material as to why the Bab not only didn’t mention
Baha’u’llah, but also actually picked his half-brother over him as the
successor to the leadership of the faith.
As we can see, for several reasons the Elijah/John relationship cannot be
used as a viable example for Jesus returning in the person of Baha’u’llah.
There are too many missing, dissimilar, incongruent or contradictory elements
involved.
Problem #3 Is That Really What Daniel Meant?
(3) Let’s look at the 2,300 “day for year” prophecy of Dan 8:14. There
are four problems with the BWF and even some Christian scholars’
interpretation of this Daniel prophecy: (a) the “day for year”
interpretation is totally without substance in this instance, (b) this prophecy
was already literally fulfilled before Christ’s birth (c) the starting point
for the prophecy is incorrect in light of modern archeology, (d) the actuality
of outside influence on the Jewish people.
First of all, the prophecy is an answer to the question posed in the previous
verse 8:13--“How long will the vision be concerning the daily sacrifices and
the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host
to be trampled underfoot?” The answer, from the literal Hebrew translation,
states--“2,300 evenings and mornings then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”
The text uses the two Hebrew words--EREB “evening or night” and BOQER “morning.”
This usage reinforces the fact that these are not claiming to be “prophetic
years,” but 2,300 evening and morning literal days. Granted, in some Bible
prophecies a day is used to represent a year, but nowhere in biblical prophecy
does “evenings and mornings” mean prophetic years as BWF scholars and some
Christian millenialists propose.[24]
Was Dan 8:9-14 ever historically fulfilled? Yes. The “he-goat which is the
king of Greece,” according to Dan 8:21, was Alexander III called the Great.
When he died in 323 BC his kingdom was divided into four portions. One of these
divisions became the Seleucid Empire. It eventually took control of Palestine
and Jerusalem under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (“the Glorious One” or “God
made Manifest”) in 171 BC. He set up Jason as his own high priest. Antiochus
immediately caused all sacrifice and worship of the Jewish God to be stopped and
killed many thousands of Jews. This prohibition lasted 2,300 days, from 171-165
BC.[25]
Accordingly the Temple in Jerusalem was converted into a sanctuary of Jupiter
the Olympian...On the fifteenth day of Chislev 168, a statue of the god was set
up on the altar, the image of the ‘lord of heaven,’ which the pious Jews
spoke of as ‘the abominable thing causing horror’; on the twenty-fifth day
of the month heathen sacrifices were offered on what had been the altar of
God...swine’s blood was poured upon the altar.[26]
For 2,300 literal “evenings and mornings” there were no “holy”
sacrifices offered on the altar and the sanctuary was “trodden underfoot” by
the Gentiles. But then, Judah Maccabeus (“the Hammerer”) overcame the Greek
army and captured Jerusalem and the temple for the Hebrew people.
A new altar was built of whole stones, and new holy vessels were made. On the
25th day of Chislev, 165 BC, exactly three years after its desecration, the
Temple was solemnly rededicated; the morning sacrifice was offered on the new
altar, and the lamps upon the golden candlestick were lighted.[27]
The Jews still honor this event annually as Hanukkah, the Feast of
Dedication. John 10:22 tells us--“Now it was the Feast of Dedication in
Jerusalem and it was winter.” The Temples had previously been dedicated in the
spring, but Judah rededicated the temple on the 25th of Chislev, which is during
the winter. So, the Grecian “little horn” of Dan 8:9-14 caused the sacrifice
and worship to stop for 2,300 evenings and mornings and desecrated the temple
with the “abomination of desolation” but the sanctuary was cleansed in 165
BC. This is an historical event--it already happened. The 2,300 evenings and
mornings are literal evenings and mornings----not years.
Some question the relevancy of this historical event to what Jesus was
telling the apostles was a future event. Often in biblical Scripture, there is a
double fulfillment of a prophecy. For Gabriel to tell Daniel that this prophecy
was also for the end times could point precisely to the events Jesus was telling
the apostles to watch out for in Matt 24:15. Jesus tells His apostles to watch
for certain signs, He does not give them a time frame, but a series of events
that would lead up to His return. In Matt 24:14 He told them what must happen
before the “abomination of desolation” stands in the “holy place.” He
said the “gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a
testimony unto all the nations; and then the end shall come.” After the gospel
of Jesus has been preached to all the world, the 2300 evenings and mornings
could possibly then begin, when the abomination of desolation stands in the holy
place and ends the sacrifice, just as Daniel had prophesied. In Matt 24:21-22
Jesus also ties this event in with a (21) “. . . great tribulation, such as
not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be. (22)
And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but
for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” This great period of
tribulation appears to agree with the Book of Revelation and other New Testament
verses as well as several Old Testament passages warning readers to be prepared
for the “great and terrible day of the Lord.” This great tribulation has
obviously not occurred yet. Nothing has happened on this planet that can compare
with the flood of Noah for causing death and destruction, and Jesus says this
will be worse when it happens. BWF author Michael Sours writes:
These passages demonstrate that the verses of the Bible may be all-inclusive
only in their specific contexts. In the case of the tribulation, the context is
likely to be the Christian era. Every religion, from its beginning, undergoes
crises and tribulations. But these tribulations must naturally worsen as the
religion declines until they reach a degree of severity, which threatens to
extinguish entirely the spiritual life of all the believers. Hence the words:
‘unless these days were shortened, no flesh would be saved’ (v.22) The word
flesh is commonly interpreted literally…In the opinion of this writer, Jesus
is simply conveying the graveness of the tests that lie ahead and which nearly
extinguish people’s faith in God, the true ‘flesh’ and bones of the
Church. The outward form of the religion may remain but its real meaning and
practice become increasingly ignored and rejected.
In the Book of Certitude, Baha’u’llah elaborates on the meaning of
chapter 24 of the Gospel of Matthew. The term ‘tribulation’ is rendered
according to its actual Greek meaning ‘oppression’. Therefore, in the Book
of Certitude, the verse reads ‘immediately after the oppression of those days’.
Baha’u’llah indicates that the oppression, or tribulation, is a time when
people seek spiritual truth but can find no guidance…the tribulation, will be
a time of great spiritual confusion and destruction. It is this confusion which
Baha’u’llah suggests is the primary meaning of ‘tribulation’.[28]
The Jewish nation has undergone tribulation, both spiritual and physical
since the time of the sojourn in Egypt. Jesus, knowing of these times, says in
Matt 24:21--“For there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of
the world until now—and never to be equaled again.” He had just mentioned
“Fleeing to the mountains . . .Let no one on the roof of his house go down to
take anything out of his house . . . Let no one in the field go back to get his
cloak . . . How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing
mothers . . . Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the
Sabbath.” These are times of physical as well as spiritual distress. People
are fleeing for the very lives.
The NIV translates Matt 24:22--“If those days had not been cut short, no
one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.”
By stating “The term ‘tribulation’ is rendered to its “actual Greek
meaning ‘oppression’ ” Baha’u’llah seems to be accusing the biblical
translators of using too forceful of a rendering for the Greek word THLPSIS, but
both Strong’s and Vine’s use ‘tribulation’ as the correct one, and
neither even mentions ‘oppression.’ By using ‘oppression’ instead of ‘tribulation’
Baha’u’llah attempts to lessen the connotation of the actual physical attack
the people will be undergoing. After lessening the force of the ‘tribulation’
he then attempts to change the definition to a time of “great spiritual
confusion” rather than actual physical pain and suffering that ‘tribulation’
implies. He further elaborates by saying that this period will be a time “ . .
. when the reins of every community have fallen into the grasp of foolish
leaders, who lead with their own whims and desires.”[29] Does this actually
sound like the worst tribulation the world has ever seen, that people should
flee from their homes and not return to them or when no flesh would be saved
except that God intervened for the elect? Does not seem so.
Michael Sours acknowledges the possible fulfillment of the Daniel prophecy at
the time of Antiochus, but questions its significance to Jesus and future
events:
However this does not preclude Daniel’s prophecies from also referring to
the same type of event occurring at a later time, which in fact Jesus clearly
indicates to be the case. It may be that Jesus intends that these literal events
associated with Antiochus IV foreshadow an even greater spiritual crisis that
would occur in the future. Whatever its significance, it is, at least, clear
that Jesus saw the things spoken of in Daniel’s prophecies as symbols of
events that would occur in the future. What then remains is to discover which
future events Jesus wants us to consider as the meaning of Daniel’s
prophecies.[30]
What Sours appears to be saying on the surface, is generally true, but he
very subtly introduced two words into his discussion in an attempt to color the
understanding of Daniel’s prophecy. Sours uses the words “spiritual” and
“symbols.” By introducing these two words, he is attempting to alter Daniel’s
prophecy from a literal one to a “symbolic” or “spiritual” one. Since
the prophecy of Daniel 8 was fulfilled literally in the situation with Antiochus
IV, there is no reason to believe that the events Jesus was prophesying about
are not to be taken just as literally. The spiritual crisis during the Seleucid
rule of Jerusalem was extreme, thousands of Jews were tortured and killed for
their religious beliefs (see 1 Maccabees 1:25-45) and failure to bow to the
Greek gods. Jesus knew that his apostles would understand what to look for in
this type of situation.
Sours mentions that many Christians feel that the abomination of desolation
has already occurred. But there was no “abomination” offered in the temple
by Titus Vespasian who destroyed the temple in 70 AD, and he was also not a
Greek, as Daniel 8 requires, but a Roman. William Sears clouds the issue by
forcing his own interpretation on the passage:
Thus with amazing accuracy, Daniel had given the time for the first coming of
Christ. No wonder Jesus Himself was so emphatic about Daniel’s prophecy
concerning His second coming or return. He told His disciples to ‘stand in the
holy place’ when Daniel’s prophecy about the ‘abomination of desolation’
was fulfilled.[31] (Emphasis mine)
Grammatically speaking, Mr. Sears’ assertion is totally without warrant.
The Greek word ESTOS is the perfect nominative participle singular active form
of ISTEMI, which means, “having stood.” If it were a command to the
disciples to stand, ISTEMI would have been in the future imperative second
person plural form, which it isn’t in any Greek manuscripts. Much to his
credit, Michael Sours corrects his fellow Baha’i, in a footnote in his book
The Prophecies of Jesus regarding the same passage:
The KJV renders the Greek as ‘stand in’, and therefore the text appears
to be telling the reader or believer to stand in the holy place. However, this
is misleading and, hence, an attempt has been made to render it in a clearer
manner in newer translations. Cf., e,g., NIV and RSV, which render the Greek as
‘standing in.’ [32]
Sears adds to his thought by writing:
Thus Daniel prophesied that two thousand three hundred days (2300) would pass
before the sanctuary would be cleansed. Following this time, all things would be
made pure again. Before this time, the people would have fallen into a state of
‘abomination’ without love for God or man; then the Messiah would appear and
restore their Faith and the purity of their belief. [33]
Sears then renders the 2,300 days to be prophetic years, as do other BWF
authors. Besides this questionable point, he has added other things to the
prophecy that aren’t actually there either. First of all, Daniel states that
an outside conquering ruler would force this “abomination” on his people.
First and Second Maccabbees, although not regarded as Scripture by Protestant
Christians, are still excellent sources for an historical perspective. Although
a great portion of the Jewish people at the time were committing abominable sins
in the eyes of God, 2Maccabbees 5 relates that there were 80,000 victims of
Antiochus’ rage, “40,000 dying by violence and as many again sold into
slavery,” including the massacre of women and children. Chapters 6 and 7 of 2
Maccabbees relates in sad and gory detail the martyrdom of Eleazor and the seven
brothers who would not follow the dictates of Antiochus but led righteous lives.
First Maccabbees relates what the actual “abomination” was--“On the
fifteenth day of Chislev in the year one hundred and forty-five the king erected
the abomination of desolation above the altar . . ..”
Sears states the people had fallen into a state of abomination. This
statement single-handedly attempts to eradicate the entire idea of the
antichrist as the “abomination” standing in the temple in the latter days.
How can the abominable acts of people “stand”? Sears then states, “ . . .
the Messiah would appear and restore their Faith and the purity of their belief.”
Nowhere in Daniel 8 does it mention the Messiah. That comes later in Daniel 9,
which does not mention the 2,300 days at all.
Problem # 4 Which Temple Sanctuary is Correct?
(4) The “sanctuary” Daniel is writing about is the temple in Jerusalem,
the site of the “burnt-offerings.” One might say that since the temple in
Jerusalem has been destroyed this prophecy cannot take place in the end times or
as the BWF claims is actually a spiritual rather than literal sanctuary. The
same objection, though, could have been raised during the time of Daniel!
Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed the temple in 586 BC and it was not standing during
the time when Daniel wrote this prophecy, yet there is no doubt he was
describing the Jerusalem temple rebuilt by Ezra and Nehemiah many years later.
For Daniel 8 to take place both directly after Daniel’s time and again in the
end times the temple would have to be rebuilt and its sanctuary trampled
underfoot for 2,300 days before those same temples are “cleansed.” Baha’u’llah
or anyone else did not rededicate this latter day temple, since it still has not
been rebuilt more than 100 years after his death. But many Christian and Jewish
scholars believe it will be some time in the future. The same temple or “holy
place” that Jesus mentions in Matthew 24 and is mentioned in Daniel 8 that is
defiled must be “cleansed” as required by Dan 8:14. Antiochus Epiphanes and
Judas Maccabbes showed the “type” in the fulfillment of the prophecy the
first time, and it was a literal fulfillment. One thing is certain, no one in
1844 “cleansed” the temple, as is required by the prophecy of Dan 8:14.
There is no reason to doubt that the second fulfillment shall also be a literal
one.
Michael Sours proposes the idea that there is no reason to believe that the
temple spoken of by Daniel is the Jerusalem temple. First he states that Jesus
“indicated that He now represented that for which the Temple in Jerusalem had
formerly stood.”[34] He uses John 2:19-22 as his proof text, in which Jesus
says to the Pharisees “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it
up.” Next he states, that the Church, which Jesus established, was the “…temple
Christ raised up in three days and became the sign and source of unity between
once divergent peoples.”[35] If the temple was the body of Christ that he
raised up in three days, when was it trampled underfoot by the Gentiles for the
required time period (2300 years/days)? If it was the Body of Christ (the
Church) raised by Jesus on the third day, when was the Church trampled underfoot
by the Gentiles for 2,300 years/days? It was only about 1810 years between Jesus’
death and the Bab’s proclamation. Spiritualizing the passage brings in all
kinds of unanswered predicaments, none of which is answered feasibly by the Baha’is.
It is difficult to correlate these ideas with Jesus’ statement in Matt
24:15--“So when you see standing in the holy place the ‘abomination that
causes desolation’ spoken of through Daniel the prophet . . ..” Sours also
attempts to draw a parallel between Daniel and Rev 11:2, which says that “the
court which is without the temple leave without, and measure it not; for it has
been given unto the nations: and the “holy city” shall be tread underfoot
for forty and two months.” If this has a relationship to Daniel 8, then the
temple that is spoken of in each must be the temple in Jerusalem, for there is
no other “holy city” for the Jews. We must remember, that Daniel 8 and 9 are
written for the Jewish nation. Daniel is told in Dan 9:24 –“Seventy weeks
are decreed upon thy people and thy holy city.” Jesus the Messiah, whose
coming Daniel 9 foretells, was a Jew. The abomination of desolation of Daniel 8
and of Matthew 24 pertains to the Jewish people and something that happens to
their sanctuary, their temple, and their city. Abdu’l-Baha states, in
attempting to force his presuppositions on history:
In the beginning of the seventh century after Christ, when Jerusalem was
conquered, the Holy of Holies was outwardly preserved—that is the house which
Solomon built; but outside the Holy of Holies the outer court was taken and
given to the Gentiles. “And the holy city shall they tread underfoot forty and
two months”—that is to say, the Gentiles shall govern and control Jerusalem
forty and two months, signifying twelve hundred and sixty years, which is the
duration of the Qur’an . . . This prophesies the duration of the Dispensation
of Islam when Jerusalem was trodden underfoot, which means it lost its glory—but
the Holy of Holies was preserved, guarded and respected—until the year
1260.[36]
Let us look at the actual words of Rev 11:2:
But leave out the court which is outside the temple, and do not measure it,
for it has been given to the Gentiles. And they will tread the holy city
underfoot for forty-two months.
First of all, Abdu’l-Baha’s mathematical calculation seems to be a little
suspect in this situation. If we add 1260 years to 638 AD when the Arab Muslims
actually conquered Jerusalem, we are left with the date 1898, not 1844. The
major problem with the 638 AD date, is that the city of Jerusalem and the temple
had been trodden underfoot and destroyed by the Gentiles in the form of the
Roman army in 70 AD, when, as Jesus prophesied in Luke 19:44, there was “not
one stone standing on another,” not the beginning of the seventh century. The
Holy of Holies, which housed the Ark of the Covenant, was the most sacred part
of the temple, “the House which Solomon built.” Abdu’l-Baha attempts, in
typical BWF methodology, to spiritualize the literal place by stating:
Briefly, what is meant by the Holy of Holies is that spiritual Law which will
never be modified, altered or abrogated; and the Holy City means the material
law which may be abrogated; and this material Law, which is described as the
Holy City, was to be trodden under foot for twelve hundred and sixty years.[37]
It seems that Abdu’l-Baha is giving contradicting statements here. Is the
Holy City Jerusalem as he claims in the previous statement or is it the “material
Law” as he proposes here? Is the Holy of Holies part of the “house that
Solomon built” or is it some type of unalterable “spiritual Law”?
Scripturally, Solomon did not build any unalterable “spiritual Law.”
In the real Holy of Holies, the high priest was the only person permitted to
enter, and then only on the Day of Atonement. [38] By the end of the first
century, there was no Holy of Holies, since the entire temple was destroyed, not
just sections of it. Historically, the Gentiles in the form of the Romans, the
Muslims and the Christians at various times ruled Jerusalem from 70 AD until
Israel reclaimed it 1968. BWF author Sours attempts to clarify the Baha’i
stand but makes an astounding change to the Scripture:
. . . outwardly, Jerusalem was trodden underfoot by the followers of Islam
not for 1,260 years, but by a people whose era lasted 1,260 years. The literal
treading underfoot of Jerusalem was a later outward appearance of the treading
underfoot of the spiritual city that had already begun.[39]
Sears, in agreeing with Sours, adds:
According to the second promise of Christ, these Gentiles (Romans-Muslims)
would tread the city underfoot until the hour of His return, which would be 1260
years by the measurement of prophecy. During all that time, the Jews would be
banished from their own land. But, in the hour of Christ’s return, the
privilege of going home would be restored to them, and the ‘times of the
Gentiles’ would be ended.
An examination of the calendar of the Muslims, who held the Holy Land
captive, revealed to these millennial scholars an astonishing thing: the year
1260 of the calendar of the Muslims coincided with the year 1844 of the calendar
of the Christians.[40]
There are still other problems that must be answered. Rev 11:2 as in the
Daniel 8 prediction does not mention that the prophecy is definitely or even
possibly a day for a year prophecy. Later, in Rev 11:9, 11 we are told that the
dead bodies of the two witnesses who are killed lay in the streets of Jerusalem
for 3 ½ days. Are we to interpret that this means their bodies lay there for 3
½ years? Yes, and then some, according to the spiritualizing of Scripture done
again by Abdu’l-Baha:
“Their bodies” means the Religion of God, and the street means in public
view. The meaning of “Sodom and Egypt,” the place “where our Lord was
crucified,” is this region of Syria, and especially Jerusalem, where the
Umayyads then had their dominions; and it was here that the Religion of God and
the divine teachings first disappeared, and a body without spirit remained. “Their
bodies” represents the Religion of God, which remained like a dead body
without spirit…As it was before explained, in the terminology of the Holy
Books three days and a half signify three years and a half, and three years and
a half are forty and two months, and forty and two months twelve hundred and
sixty days; and as each day by the text of the Holy Book signifies one year, the
meaning is that for twelve hundred and sixty years, which is the cycle of the
Qur’an, the nations, tribes and peoples would look at their bodies—that is
to say, that they would make a spectacle of the Religion of God.[41]
Initially, this may seem to make logical, mathematical and exegetical sense,
except for a few very important points, which blatantly appear upon further
examination. First of all, we are given 3 ½ days as our starting time period.
If we grant that a day in prophecy equals a year, then we are given 3 ½ years
or also forty-two months. The months then could then be converted to 1, 260
days. This could all very well be true. But then the computation falls
completely apart. Abdu’l-Baha then reconverts the days into years a second
time. There is no logical reason, nor biblical precedent to exchange those days
into years a second time—we’ve already done it once. There is no Biblical
example or standard whatsoever for a double day-to-year conversion. It isn’t
logical to do it twice. If twice, why not three times or four times or even more
until it fits whatever time one desires? If the same procedure were performed
with the 2,300 days of Dan 8:14 and converted them into years and then months,
there would be 27,600 months which converts into 828,000 days which equals
828,000 years. The entire process becomes meaningless then, but consistency
requires doing it the same in both instances.
There are also problems when William Sears’ attempts to clarify the BWF
position. His timeline for Rev 11:2-3, which he claims could now be read--“And
the Holy City (Jerusalem) shall be tread under foot for 1260 years.”[42] If
one were logically looking at the passage and granting Sears’ presupposition
regarding its meaning, we would begin with the year 70 AD when the Romans
totally destroyed the city and “left not one brick upon another,” and the
Jewish nation was dispersed throughout the world. If we add 1,260 prophetic
years to AD 70 we arrive at the year 1330 AD. That’s 514 years short of the
1844 goal. So if we take the 1,260 years from the conquering Muslims in 637 AD,
disregarding the hundreds of years of Roman treading, we arrive at the year
1897. That is 53 years past the hypothetical 1844 date needed for this
fulfillment. How does Sears answer this dilemma? He equivocates. If the calendar
doesn’t fit one’s presuppositions---change calendars:
An examination of the calendar of the Muslims, who held the city captive,
revealed to these millennial scholars an astonishing thing: The year 1260 on the
calendar of the Muslims coincided with the year 1844 of the calendar of the
Christians.
continue
© 2000 Russ Williams
|
