Some Observations
on the Baha'i World Faith (page 3 of 3)

The year 1260 given in Revelation as the time when the days of the ‘Gentiles’ would be ended and the Jews permitted to return to their homeland, was the same year as that of 1844 when the Muslim rulers were forced to sign the Edict of Toleration permitting the return of the Jews to Israel.”[43]

Sears alters the language of Scripture so that instead of stating that Jerusalem will be trodden underfoot for 1,260 years it now reads that Jerusalem would be trodden underfoot until the year 1,260 on the Muslim calendar, which coincides with the year 1844 on the Christian calendar. This is totally without grammatical, hermeneutical or scholastical foundation.

Actually Rev 11:2 matches the Dan 9:27 seven-day/year prophecy much better when taken as a day/day literally. Forty-two months equals the 3 ½-year time period that elapses between the forming of the covenant linking the Jewish people with the “prince who shall come” from Dan 9:26. At the end of the “so-called” 1,260-year era of Islam, the Jews still did not control the holy city of Jerusalem. If 1844 were the actual date of the fulfillment of the prophecy, then it would be a false prophecy. The Gentiles controlled the holy city, treading it underfoot, until more than 100 years later in 1968 when the Jews recaptured it from the Muslims. In fact, the Gentiles are still controlling the temple site both inner and outer parts.

There is no authority whatsoever for Abdu’l-Baha’s statement that the beginning of the seventh century is the starting place, other than his own say-so. Actually, the Jews did not control the city of Jerusalem even before 70 AD. It was part of the Roman province of Palestine after having been conquered by Pompey in 63 BC. For Abdu’l-Baha to say that the Holy of Holies was preserved goes directly against the history of the Jewish temple. According to Josephus’ works in his chapters on the Jewish wars, when Titus attacked the city, his men burned the temple to the ground in such a frenzy that they actually trampled one another in carrying out the deed against the general’s orders. Sours again attempts to soften the blow of Abdu’l-Baha’s interpretation by writing about the capture of the city by the Muslims:

The Caliph was not setting up an idol in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. He did not ask anyone to worship him or anything other than God, the same God of Judaism and Christianity . . . Omar had come to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher to show reverence for the sacred site. So it would be wrong to confuse the pious intention of Omar for an act of abomination.[44]

Not only does Michael Sours attempt to change the length of time for the treading underfoot, change the literalness of the treading upon God’s Holy City to a “spiritual” treading, he then attempts to change the site from the temple to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Omar did commit an abominable practice, by building the Mosque of Omar directly on the ruins of the former temple.

In order to further the idea that the Bible presents the Baha’i religion as the natural successor to Christianity and Islam, Abdu’l-Baha claims that the two witnesses mentioned in Rev 11:3-12 who will prophesy for 1,260 days are Mohammad and Ali. The Books of Matthew and Revelation are written for Christians. Why would Jesus warn His followers that when they see two Arabs in 600 years start a new religion that they should take heed? Rev 11:1 gives very specific instructions, as are found in the Book of Ezekiel, to “Rise and measure the temple of God and the altar . . . ” to measure with a measuring rod the dimensions of the sanctuary. This is in regard to the literal temple and its dimensions with the outer court not included, since it had been given to the Gentiles. This is not a “spiritual” temple, or the body of Jesus, or the Church as the Body of Christ, it is the literal temple of God in the Jerusalem.

Since the time of the conquering of Jerusalem by the Muslims doesn’t coincide with the actual timeline of prophecy, Sours then tries to mesh the 1260 years of Daniel and Revelation with the beginning of Mohammad’s “hegira” or flight from Mecca to Medina in 622 AD. He reckons that if one takes the date of the “hegira” and adds the 1260 years one arrives at 1844. Again, several problems arise. First, the year 622 AD is reckoned from the Western or Gregorian calendar. To then switch from the Gregorian/solar calendar, to the Islamic/lunar calendar that uses a 360-day cycle is fraught with inconsistencies. If we begin with the Western calendar we must stick with the Western calendar since we arrive at the year 622 AD by figuring from solar 365 1/4-day years. If we begin with the Islamic or lunar calendar, then we must divide the 227,030 days that occurred between the year 1AD and the year 622 AD in the Western calendar by the 360 days of the Islamic/lunar calendar. That takes us to a beginning date of 630 AD for Mohammad’s famous flight. If we then add the 1260 lunar years to that date we arrive at the year 1890. If we begin with the Western calendar date of 622 AD and add 1260 years to that, we arrive at the year 1882. If we subtract 622 from 1844 we arrive at 1222 solar years that equal 446,356 days. By taking the 446,356 days and dividing by 360 days we arrive at 1240 lunar years, not 1260. The 2,300 “year” statement of Daniel 8 is also fraught with the same timeline problems. The 2,300 years are prophetic lunar years, which equal 828,000 days. When the 828,000 days are divided by 365 ¼ days to equal solar years and the conventional calendar we arrive at 2,267 years. If the starting point is 457 BC and we count 2,267 solar years from there we arrive at the year 1810. This differs greatly from the words of Matthews who states:

Taking 457 BC as the starting point of the 2,300 years, we find that 2,300 minus 457 equals 1843. As noted above, however, we must add a year to make up for the lack of any ‘year zero’ in the Gregorian calendar. Thus 2300 years from 457 BC bring us precisely to 1844 AD. The only logical way to deny that 1844 represents the culmination of the 2300-year cycle is to deny that 457 BC is its starting point. If we do this, however; we must also deny that the latter date is the starting point of the 490-year interval that encompasses the various prophecies about the Messiah’s first advent. [45]

We must remember, the words of Rev 11:1-2 are very specifically in regard to the “holy city” of Jerusalem and the “temple of God” in that holy city.

Another problem arising here is that the Book of Revelation in which we find the "two witnesses" is written in Greek. So the word we find in Rev 11:3 translated “witness” is the Greek word MARTUS from which we derive the English word MARTYR that has to do with suffering martyrdom as a witness.

Muhammad was not martyred for the Islamic faith. Some Baha’i scholars claim that the witnesses are actually the sacred books of Islam the Qur’an and the Hadith. How can a book be killed as the witnesses are in Rev 11:7? How can books' dead bodies lie in the street? When did books have live bodies? How many dead books are refused burial in a grave? Do books have feet on which to stand? Do they have the Breath of Life from God? Did these two books ascend into heaven at God's request to “Come up here”? Rev 11:1-13 is speaking about actual people, not books, and for 1,260 days, not years. As stated before, the word MARTUS used to describe the witnesses has the connotation of a "martyred witness."

Problem # 5 The 457 BC Edict—Was It the Correct One?

(5) The choice of the starting date of 457 BC as the proper decree for Dan 9:25--“to restore and build Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times…”

has definite problems. Abdu’l-Baha’ writes in Some Answered Questions:

To conclude: in the Book of Daniel, from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the martyrdom of Christ, seventy weeks are appointed; for by the martyrdom of Christ the sacrifice is accomplished and the altar destroyed. This is a prophecy of the Manifestation of Christ. These seventy weeks begin with the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem, concerning which four edicts were issue by three kings…But Daniel refers especially to the third edict which was issued in the year 457 B.C. Seventy weeks make four hundred and ninety days. Each day, according to the text of the Holy Book, is a year. For in the Bible it is said: ‘The Day of the Lord is one year.’ Therefore, four hundred and ninety days are four hundred and ninety years. The third edict of Artaxerxes was issued four hundred and fifty-seven years before the birth of Christ, and Christ when He was martyred and ascended was thirty-three years of age. When you add thirty-three to four hundred and fifty-seven, the result is four hundred and ninety, which is the time announced by Daniel for the manifestation of Christ.[46]

Choosing this decree and the remainder of Abdu’l-Baha’s date reasoning is seriously flawed. First of all and most importantly, the decree of 457 BC found in Ezra 7 does not once mention “the restoration and the rebuilding of Jerusalem” as he states. One must question whether he ever read Ezra 7:12-26 in which the edict appears. These verses mention only “the house of God which is at Jerusalem” and its construction. There is no mention whatsoever of the city, the walls, or the streets of the City of Jerusalem----just the temple. When Nehemiah asks his relative in Neh 1:3, which occurs 12 years after the decree in Ezra 7, “concerning Jerusalem” he is told, “The wall of Jerusalem is also broken down, and its gates are burned with fire.” When he personally views the wall of Jerusalem in Neh 2:13 what does he find? “ . . . the walls of Jerusalem which were broken down and its gates which were burned with fire.” He writes in 2:17--“You see the distress that we are in, how Jerusalem lies waste and its gates are burned with fire. Come and let us build the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer be a reproach.”

Ezra was given the decree in 457 BC, but almost nothing was done in regard to Jerusalem the city. Jewish historians Max Margolis and Alexander Marx elaborate:

Ezra realized that in order to defend Jerusalem from a sudden attack the city should be fortified and therefore made preparations to rebuild the walls. That undertaking was in excess of the royal authority granted to him. And so his enemies seized opportunity to denounce him to the king...the king gave orders for the immediate cessation of the work and for the razing of the part already constructed...News of the calamity was brought near the end of 446 to Nehemiah, who as the king’s cupbearer stood in high favor with the court. He succeeded in obtaining permission to go to Jerusalem and rebuild the walls of the city.[47]

This cessation of building is found in Ezra 4:12-24. The king obviously knew the scope of the power he had given Ezra, and it did not include rebuilding the walls of the city. The city was later completed because of Nehemiah’s decree, which the Encyclopedia Judaica lists as occurring in 445 BC and names Nehemiah as the person who completed the construction of the walls of the city of Jerusalem,[48] not Ezra.

There are other problems with Abdu’l-Baha’s statements regarding the timeline in Daniel 9. He claims that the third edict was:

issued four hundred and fifty-seven years before the birth of Christ, and Christ when He was martyred and ascended was thirty-three years of age. When you add thirty-three to four hundred and fifty-seven, the result is four hundred and ninety, which is the time announced by Daniel for the manifestation of Christ.

First of all, Jesus was not born 457 years after the edict of 457 BC (which is the incorrect edict anyway). Most modern scholars believe He was born between 4-2 B.C. depending on where the death of Herod is placed. So he was born either 453 or 455 years after this particular edict. If we take the lower of the two numbers, 2BC, then Jesus was crucified in the spring of 32AD, just before His 34th birthday. Secondly, the prophecy states that Messiah the Prince would be “cut off” (killed) after the 69th week, not during or after the 70th week. So 69 weeks of years is 69X7=483 years; 483X360= 173,880 days. The correct decree was given to Nehemiah March 14 (1st of Nisan), 445 BC. Beginning with March 14, 445 BC and counting 173,880 days, we end up on April 6, 32 AD. April 6, 32 AD was Palm Sunday, the day Jesus rode into Jerusalem and the first time He accepted worship as the Messiah, (Mat. 21:9). A few days later He would be “cut off” from the living.[49]

The seventy weeks of Dan 9:25 are for the people of Israel and the city of Jerusalem—not necessarily for the Messiah. He is a part of the 70 weeks, but only a part. According to Dan 9:24 several things would happen at the end of the 70th week: (1) To finish the transgression, (2) To make an end of sins, (3) To make reconciliation for iniquity, (4) To bring in everlasting righteousness, (5) To seal up vision and prophecy and (6) To anoint the Most Holy. According to the BWF since the 70th week of Daniel occurred at the death of Jesus all of these things should have happened at that time. But have they? Was there an end to sin? Was transgression finished? Was everlasting righteousness brought in to the earth? No! Jesus’ death on the cross did make reconciliation for iniquity, but the other five items are still pending. The earth is just as sinful as ever, in fact maybe more so if Matt 24:12 is in effect. Did visions and prophecy end? If so, then there could be no “prophets” named Mohammad or the Bab or even Baha’u’llah.

Problem #6 The ‘Times of the Gentiles Ended

With the “Edict of Toleration in 1844”’

 (6) The BWF scholars claim that the “times of the Gentiles” ended in 1844 when the Bab declared who he was to the world. The proof of this, they say, can be found in

a quote from author George Townshend:

. . . the strict exclusion of the Jews from their own land enforced by the Muslims for

some twelve centuries was at last relaxed by the Edict of Toleration and the ‘times of the Gentiles’ were fulfilled.[50]

The governing authorities supposedly issued this Edict of Toleration in 1844. In the search for information about this very important ‘Edict of Toleration of 1844’ this author has searched in over 40 encyclopedia sets and nearly 100 Jewish and Ottoman texts and did not find even one word about it. Seems odd that the 16-volume Encyclopaedia Judaica wouldn’t even mention such a turning point of enormous import in Jewish history! It mentions the “Edict of Toleration” of 1782 for Vienna and Austria, but not even a hint of the 1844 “edict.”[51] The Encyclopedia of Jewish History does reference that in 1839 the Sultan passed an edict, which took away the heavy taxes that burdened the Jews’ lives and had prohibited them from voting. It also says that at the end of the first half of the nineteenth century (circa 1850) there were only 8,700 Jews living in all of the Palestine area, and the vast majority of them had been there for decades. This would be six years after the passing of the ‘edict’ that supposedly ended the “times of the Gentiles.” Fifty years later, in 1900 there were still only 35,000 Jews living in the entire area. Seems like they didn’t know the “times of the Gentiles” had ended for them.

The Encyclopedia of Jewish History further states: “Improvement of the Jews’ legal and political status in the Ottoman Empire began in 1839 with the royal decree to end the poll tax. Jews’ civil and legal status was made equal with the rest of the population.”

But this is in 1839 and Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire. How many Jews returned to the Holy Land after the Edict of Toleration--several hundred--a thousand? This was hardly the return of the exiled Jewish nation. One must ask: After the Edict of Toleration was Jerusalem still under the control of the Gentiles? If so, then this obviously could not be the end of their “times.” The Jews must take over control of Jerusalem and rule over their own lands to end the “times of the Gentiles.” According to many contemporary Christian scholars it occurred 100 years later at the end of W.W.II. The “Servitude of the Nation,” which began with the first siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 606 BC, did not end until May 14, 1948 and the “time of the Gentiles,” which began with the third siege in which the city and temple were utterly destroyed in 586 BC, did not end until June 7, 1967 when the Jews regained control of their sacred city. The Edict of Toleration did not grant the Jews the right to rule their own land as is required to end the “time of the Gentiles.” Although the Jews were granted several new political and economic concessions in the early 1800’s they were not free as a people or nation to rule themselves. The Gentiles were still treading down Jerusalem and their control of the sacred places did not end with the Edict of Toleration.

Sears’ second tactic would appear to be a ‘faulty appeal to authority.’ He mentions celebrities of the 1800’s such as Edgar Allan Poe and Ralph Waldo Emerson, as having been in attendance at certain millennial gatherings of the time. Given the mental history of these two very talented poets, one must wonder how they give theological or historical credence to the BWF case. Sears then quotes a periodical entitled the Star of the West Magazine, “ . . . In America, Europe, and Asia the clear message of the ending of the prophetic time in 1844 was proclaimed with power by many voices.”[52] He does not offer any explanation as to why this magazine is any type of authority on biblical prophecy or theology.

Baha’u’llah: The Branch From Jesse, the Root and Son of David

The BWF claims that Baha’u’llah is the promised descendant of King David who ruled on the throne of his ancestor and instigated the peace process that will eventually encompass the entire world, in fulfillment of many Old Testament prophecies including those given to David, 2 Sam 7:12, 28-37, Isa 9:7, Dan 7:14, Mic 5:2. In Ps 89:3-4, 29, 35-37 God promises:

(3) I have made a covenant with My chosen; I have sworn to David My servant, (4) I will establish your seed forever, and build up your throne to all generations. (29) I will establish his descendants forever, and his throne as the days of heaven. (35) Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David. (36) His descendants shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before Me. (37) It shall be established forever like the moon, and the witness in the sky is faithful.

Baha’u’llah’s assertion is found in the writings of his great grandson, Shoghi Effendi who claimed that their family was descended from Jesse, David’s father. The claim is made that when King Jehoiachin and the Jews were in exile during the Babylonian captivity, which began with the first invasion of Nebuchadnezzar in 606 BC, many of the Jewish royal family intermarried with the native Persian royalty. Since Jehoiachin was a direct descendant of King David through Solomon the children produced through these intermarriages would then have King David’s blood in their veins and thus could lay claim to David’s throne. The problem with this line of thinking is that Almighty God cursed King Jehoiachin and his family line, as he had his father King Jehoiakim before him. There is a double blood curse on the “seed” of these two men. The first, on the father, is found in Jer 36:30-31:

(30) Therefore thus says the Lord concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: ‘He shall have no one to sit on the throne of David, and his dead body shall be cast out into the heat of the day and the frost of the night. (31) I will punish him, his seed and his servants for their iniquity…

 The second curse, on the son, is found in Jer 22:30:

Thus says the Lord: “Write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days; for none of his descendants shall prosper sitting on the throne of David, and ruling anymore in Judah.”

 Jehoiachin the son did not prosper on the throne of King David, since he only ruled for three months and ten days. He had five sons, and none of them ever ruled on the throne of David in Judah. When the Jews returned to their land following the captivity, they did not have a king ruling over them. Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the eldest son was one of the overseers of the move back to Jerusalem with Ezra, but he never served as king of the Jews. Jesus is a bloodline descendant of King David through his mother Mary. The lineage of Mary is found in Luke 3:23-38. Here it can be noted that Mary’s father Eli (Heli) is a descendant of David’s line, not through Solomon’s cursed line, but through his other son Nathan. Jesus was adopted by Joseph into the Solomonic or ruling side of the lineage, but he did not have the cursed blood in his veins. For these six reasons at least, the 1844 date for Jesus’ return is incorrect.

[1]Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds (Oxford: George Ronald, 1996), xi.

[2]Ibid.

[3]Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1980 ed.), 31.

[4]J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust), 126.

[5]Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, xii.

[6] J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 47.

[7] William S. Hatcher and J. Douglas Martin, The Baha’i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 83.

[8]Francis J. Beckwith and Stephen E. Parrish, See The Gods Fall (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, 1997), 194.

[9]Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-I-Iqan: The Book of Certitude (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1983 Pocket Ed.), 81.

[10]‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions (Wilmette, Illinois: Baha’i Publishing Trust, 1994 Printing), 123.

[11] Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 107.

[12]Michael Sours, Baha’u’llah’s Tablet To The Christians (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1990), 81.

[13]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 1991), 132.

[14]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millenium (Oxford: George Ronald Publishing, 1995 Printing), 5.

[15] Ibid.

[16]Walter R. Martin, Kingdom of the Cults, 2d. Revised.(Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1985), 412.

[17]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 146-147.

[18]Ibid., 20-21.

[19]Ibid.

[20]J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 125.

[21]Ibid., 215.

[22]Ibid., 220.

[23]Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 114-115.

[24]Ibid., 104.

[25]John F. Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 176.

[26]Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the Jewish People (Philadelphia: The Jewish publication Society of America, 1938), 137-138.

[27]Ibid., 140.

[28]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 92-93.

[29]Baha’u’llah, The Kitab-I-Iqan, 29.

[30]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 66.

[31]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium, 19.

[32]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 63.

[33]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium, 20.

[34]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 32.

[35]Ibid., 33.

[36]‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 46.

[37]Ibid., 48.

[38]Roth, Cecil, ed. “Holy Places,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 8, (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1972), 919.

[39]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 195.

[40]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium, 16.

[41]‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 52.

[42]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium, 16.

[43]Ibid.

[44]Michael Sours, The Prophecies of Jesus, 196.

[45]Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 110.

[46] ‘Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 40-41.

[47]Max L. Margolis and Alexander Marx, A History of the Jewish People, 123.

[48]Cecil Roth ed., “History,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol.8, 768.

[49]Mark Eastman and Chuck Smith, The Search for Messiah, 80-81.

[50]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium, 13.

[51]Cecil Roth, “Toleranzpatent,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol.15, 1209.

[52]William Sears, Thief in the Night: The Case of the Missing Millennium, 5-6.

[53]J. E. Esslemont, Baha’u’llah and the New Era, 217.

[54]Gary Matthews, He Cometh with Clouds, 99.

© 2000 Russ Williams

Russ Williams is the president of GTO Inc.  He holds a B.S. in Communications,  an M.A. in Christian Apologetics and an M.A. in World Faiths and Cultures from Trinity Graduate School.