 |
Jesus' Station |
 |
|
Jesus' Station |
|
The defining Scriptural aspects of Jesus "station" (just who He really was) are critical considerations because they set the limits of acceptable interpretation concerning who else might, or might not, hold that position of spiritual authority. They also set acceptable interpretation concerning His promised return. Just what does Scripture intend to relay to us about Jesus' station?
In discussion Baha'is often proclaim that they view the actual words spoken by Jesus Christ as divinely ordained. This makes sense since Baha'i teachings consider Jesus to be a "manifestation", a perfect reflection of God. But if that is true, then what about these words of Christ's spoken after His Resurrection?
Luke 24:36,
"While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you troubled and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.'
When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked them, 'Do you have anything to eat?' They gave Him a piece of broiled fish and He took it and ate it in their presence."
These are, as Baha'is seem to concede, Jesus' "divinely ordained" words. The problem however, with respect to Baha'i doctrine about His Resurrection, is that, 1) He said them AFTER His death on the cross. And 2) He obviously goes way out His way to demonstrate graphically that not only was His person literally resurrected, but His Physical body was too... "a Ghost does not have FLESH AND BONES AS YOU SEE I HAVE." Neither does a ghost, much less a symbol, ask for fish to eat. For a symbol does not do things the point of which is to specifically prove that symbolism is NOT intended. Symbols aren't things that strive to demonstrate an intended concrete reality specifically apart from symbolic intent. If Baha'is believe, as they say, that Jesus' Words are "divinely ordained" then they need to begin accepting what those Words say. For they leave absolutely no question of where they stand concerning His Resurrection, and it's diametrically opposed to the Baha'i symbolic theory. Baha'i teaching says that Jesus was only Resurrected in the renewed belief of His followers. 1 Scripture, however, has Him (in the "person" of Jesus of Nazareth) speaking, eating, being physically embraced, having his wounds probed by doubters, and going to great lengths to prove that he was really there, alive again, in the flesh (though obviously a "glorified" flesh). One doesn't have to accept it. It is indeed a supernatural event outside the acceptability of Science so revered by Baha'i religion. But the point remains that the doctrine of His literal Resurrection is not some perversion of the Gospel's original intent. It IS the Gospel's original intent and if one reveres the Words of Christ, that becomes patently obvious. The actual words of Jesus (especially those spoken after He died) reveal a bad mistake in Baha'i theology concerning Jesus' Resurrection and a refusal to truly accept Christ on His own terms, as originally intended. In any event , regardless of how one chooses to view Jesus' Resurrection, the Scriptural intention certainly reveals quite plainly that, once again, there are major, objective, clashes between Scripture's genuine intentions, and Baha'i theology. This cannot be, according to that same Baha'i theology. For according to clear Baha'i doctrine all religion is supposed to be really saying essentially the same thing. Thus, once again, at the very least Baha'i religion fails its own test as a legitimate religion because when one "independently investigates" one must come to the obvious conclusion that Scripture and Baha'i religion have major and irreconcilably objective differences in belief, not trivial ones. Either Baha'i religion is wrong, or Jesus went out of His way to deceive His followers about His Resurrection. One cannot accept Baha'i theology's view of Jesus' Resurrection, and propose that one believes that Jesus' Words were "divinely ordained". For those "divinely ordained" Words defy Baha'i theology at that point in passages such as Luke 24:36. And the fact and implications of His literal Resurrection carry with them defining aspects concerning Jesus' "station" that are fatal to Baha'i theology on a variety of fronts. In this one event Scripture sets the singularly exclusive incarnate deity of Jesus above every religious leader in all eternity, to the degree of infinity. And in it's literal reality we observe that Christ's "coming again" will be specifically and necessarily a personal one, not a return symbolically fulfilled by some other "person" (like Baha'u'llah).
Beyond Luke 24:36, Baha'is fail to appreciate the implications of Matthew 28:9, John 20:17, John 20:27, John 21:12, or Acts 1:3 with respect to Christ's divinely ordained Words. These are certainly not exhaustive concerning the literal reality of Christ's Resurrection, but they draw a line in the sand of intent beyond which Baha'i religion cannot pass with its opposite, symbolized belief about Christ's Resurrection. The lack of unity here is graphic, obvious, deals with original intent (not subsequent perversion of the text), and rests on a major doctrine of belief.
It is bad enough that the definitive clash reveals a basic invalidity in the Baha'i presumption of universal religious unity. But it also reveals by comparison with Scripture's intent concerning Christ's Resurrection, a MAJOR downgrade in the station and reality of Jesus' Mission, His personal identity as universal Savior-Messiah, and as God the Son (God incarnate).
In answering this observation so telling on the validity of Baha'i theology, Baha'is often turn to an argument that, even if it were true, would become just as fatal to the legitimacy of Baha'i religion from another perspective.
Baha'is, at this point in discussion, will often reassert that they definitely believe that any words uttered directly by Jesus are inspired to the highest degree. But, they will add, in all Baha'i Scriptures (and by extension all Scriptures) it is only the direct writing of the person or an approved transcript that are considered "perfect" texts while unapproved (by the actual manifestation personally) texts are considered "hearsay" and less reliable. Clearly, Baha'is hasten to add, all of the words in the Gospels were written after the death of Jesus so none was ever approved by Him and none are ascribed to Him directly either. In fact, say Baha'i adherents along this line of reasoning, the Gospels seem to have been written decades after the fact as attested to by almost every biblical scholar (Christians, not Baha'is). Thus, Baha'is conclude flatly, none are of the highest Baha'i authenticity. Additionally, this Baha'i line of thought further denigrates the reliability of Scripture saying that there have been language and culture changes including the Hebrew Midrash traditions (symbolic writing style) before we ever see the "original Greek" of 300 AD. At this point Baha'is will explain that this gives them license to consider Scripture as merely "hearsay accounts", considered valuable ONLY if interpreted in a Baha'i way (reshaped in meaning with symbolism that disregards, in many instances, the original intent of the passages).
But Baha'is who think Jesus' words were inspired must accept what He says by way of Scripture (the only source, and definitively so by His own commission), or it becomes a meaningless statement to say that "any words uttered directly by Jesus are inspired to the highest degree". In other words, Baha'is who follow this line of thought are trying to say that, although Jesus words were totally inspired, we have no way of knowing what they were because the Bible is an unreliable source for them.
That reasoning is indefensible even from within Baha'i doctrine that constantly uses direct quotes from the New Testament as an authoritative source to promote its own ideas through what Jesus "said" in the New Testament. If what Baha'is say is true about the NT when they argue that Scripture is less than reliable in the validity of its intended Message, then Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha would have to be seen as depending, themselves, on faulty material as being authoritatively correct in terms of what Jesus said.
It needs to be clearly understood that the acceptance of Christ as a "mirror" or "messenger/manifestation" of God is distinctly different and less than the exclusive Scriptural concept of Jesus as God the Son, God incarnate. I have often found myself defending Christ's deity only to hear a Baha'i say, "Oh but we do believe in the "divinity" of Jesus." But clearly Baha'i religion does not, in fact, accept the concept of Jesus as God incarnate, yet, as we will also see, Scripture unquestionably proclaims it. When we recognize this truth we are able to realize Jesus as the singular and preeminent spiritual figure in all eternity, not one "manifestation" of many, and certainly not one of some past, primitive, outdated "dispensation".
Also, once again, we must recognize a major and definitive (not trivial) dichotomy between the Baha'i concept of Jesus and the Scriptural one. Scripture is solidly at odds with Baha'i doctrine on the concept of Jesus' station. The basic theological and spiritual integrity of Baha'i religion cannot survive such a dichotomy.
Concerning the concept of actual incarnate deity, Baha'is, in espousing spiritual progressionary evolution, must try to dismiss the inevitable logical conclusion that such teaching ultimately implies that man will ascend to the state of deity. Baha'is respond conceding that one of the questions which might come up after the assertion that spiritual progress is possible is whether a person could progress so far as to be equal to God. Abdul-Baha, they observe, speaks clearly on this topic as follows:
"... But for every being their is a point which it cannot overpass; that is to say, he who is in the condition of servitude, however far he may progress in gaining limitless perfections, will never reach the condition of Deity." Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions, pg. 230.
Thus, in terms of the "common man", they seem to escape the inherent problem in man, allegedly a spiritually progressive evolutionary creature, ever reaching a state of deity. Yet Scripture says of Jesus Christ at John 1:3 that,
"Through Him (Jesus) all things were made, without Him nothing was made that has been made."
Isaiah calls Him "Emmanuel", meaning God with us (Isaiah 7:14). In Isaiah 9:6 he says of the Messiah,
"He will be called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
This scripture once and for all establishes Jesus as a person of the Godhead; both Holy One, Prince of Peace, and God. In Isaiah 43:3 God identifies Himself as both the Holy One, the Savior, and the "Lord your God" in an all encompassing statement of identity,
"For I am the Lord, your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior..."
At Isaiah 43:11 God lets us know in no uncertain terms that if anyone will be a Savior it will be God Himself.
"I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is no Savior."
At Isaiah 59:15 God says,
"The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene; so His own arm worked salvation for Him, and His own righteousness sustained Him. He put on righteousness as His breastplate and the helmet of salvation on His head."
God Himself was the Savior for there was no one else worthy to intervene.To fulfill prophecy as the Messiah the Savior Christ had to be within the Godhead.
The Gospel of John does not portray Jesus as a teacher or mortal mirror of God's truth but says in John 1,
"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made. Without Him nothing was made that has been made. In Him was life and that life was the light of men... The Word (which is God) became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the one and only."
In seeing that the Word is God and that Jesus was that Word made flesh, we can only conclude that Jesus is God the Son, not a mere mortal "Messenger". In seeing that Jesus the Son was with God from the beginning and that all things were created through Him, we see that Christ Himself was not created. For He precedes the creation of all that was created, actually being the author of that creation. His eternal nature clearly testifies to His deity of person. Notice the relationship between Christ's person and the light that was in Him. Yes, of course the light of God emanated from Him. But not as a reflection only. For it says that the person of Jesus through whom that light shown was with God from the beginning. We can then see that the true meaning of scriptures like Hebrews 2:7 that say of Him that He was, "made a little lower than the angels", speak only of His human incarnation and not the being of His person which is eternal. Baha'i belief says that Jesus is but a reflection of the Word. John clearly tells us that He <IS> the Word "made flesh", not just a mirror to reflect it.
Isaiah 45:18 is another scripture in the web of biblical agreement concerning this truth;
"For this is what the Lord says- He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth."
This is Jesus, God the Son, through whom and by whom all things were created. Colossians 1:15 tells us the same thing about Jesus;
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him."
Here we see an even greater proclamation of Christ's actual INCARNATE deity in that not only did He personally create the worldly realm, but the invisible spiritual things of the heavenly realm as well! We see that He was a man but also with all of the fullness of God and thus we confess the truth that He is both man and God; God incarnate.
Another connection between Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment in Jesus that indicates His deity can be seen by comparing Isaiah 45:22 and Phillipians 2:5. Isaiah 45:22 begins,
"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the Lord alone are righteousness and strength.' All who have raged against Him will come to Him and be put to shame. But in the Lord all the descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult."
Here God tells us again that He alone can save us. He is the only Savior. He tells us that in the end all will acknowledge His righteousness and that some will see that truth to their shame, others to their joy. Now let us look at Phillipians 2:5 to see how Jesus compares to this description God has given us of Himself;
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
Now we can see that it is before both the God in Isaiah and the Jesus in Phillipians that every knee will bow and every tongue confess is Lord. We can see that Jesus, "being in very nature God", was "MADE" to be in human "likeness" as a servant by voluntarily taking on a dual, mortal "nature of a servant" by choice, "being found in appearance as a man." God in Isaiah clearly tells us that there is no Savior apart from Himself and that He will judge Man. Jesus is clearly indicated in Scripture as both the Savior and exclusive Judge of Mankind. For in Acts 4:12 it says of Jesus,
"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
And Jesus said of Himself in John 5:22,
"The Father judges not but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father."
The interconnected agreement in Scripture unmistakably proclaims Christ as the preeminent spiritual figure in all of human history and, beyond that, our very God.
Jesus said, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing." But He also said that there was one who did glorify Him. If the Father Himself glorifies Christ who can refute His glory? In Isaiah 42:8 God says,
"I am the Lord: that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols."
But in John 13:31 Jesus says,
"Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in Him. If God is glorified in Him, God will glorify the Son in Himself..."
God is glorified in the Son and, the Son is also glorified in God. Jesus' identity as God the Son is thus revealed in the distinct integrity of His person in association with that of the Father who does give Him His glory.
In John 11:25 Jesus says,
"I am the Resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live even though he dies. And whomever lives and believes in me will never die."
According to Baha'i' interpretation of who Christ knew Himself to be this statement would be in gross error. Jesus would have to have said,
"My Father is the Resurrection and the life. He who believes in Him will live even though he dies. And whoever lives and believes in Him will never die."
The latter statement is, of course, true, even as Jesus personal claim is true, since the Father and Jesus are one. The point is that Jesus makes a clear and unmistakable distinction, specifically attributing to Himself a personal station far beyond the Baha'i view of Him as a mortal "Messenger" who is only a reflection of the Father. They are both distinct in person, and one in being, despite Man's intellectual inability to understand it.
Jesus Says in John 3:13,
"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven- the Son of Man. For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Jesus' claim that no one but Himself has ever been to heaven definitively sets Him apart and above every other prophet and religious leader for all time. Here we see in His very own words, not the claim to be a Messenger in common with other religious leaders, but the "one and only" Son of God. He is the only one who has ever gone into heaven. He does not tell us that the light of God's truth alone has been in heaven, but that He, Jesus, is the only one who has been there. It is a deific claim, not one of a "messenger" or "mirror" only.
In John 5:21 Jesus says,
"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so, the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it. Moreover the Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father who sent Him."
Let us look at each part of this dramatic scripture to see the full implication of Christ's words. "For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it." We immediately see that Christ clearly distinguishes Father and Son, attributing to both the power to give life. It does not say that just as the Father gives life, even so, the Father gives life through the Son. It says that the Son Himself gives life, just like the Father, and further more, to whom He is pleased to give it.
Jesus said, "The Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son." How much clearer a distinguishing aspect of the differentiation between Father and Son could there be? And yet how much more importance could be attached to the Son's person than that He, and not the Father, is the Judge of all Mankind? How much clearer could Christ's godhood be proclaimed than that He, and not the Father, judges us. No one but God owns such authority.
And finally, "...that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father who sent Him." Not only does Jesus again distinguish Father and Son, but declares that the honor given the Father must be equally given the Son. This again both shows the deity and distinct personage of both Father and Son as members of the Godhead. But to see Christ's true station we must not look at the question of only where godly authority lies. For at different times and in different ways authority is transferred within the Godhead freely and in perfect agreement. Christ judges, not the Father, but that authority is given back to the Father at the end that God may be all in all. As a man, Jesus only does and says what the Father tells Him, but He still has the authority to give eternal life "to whom He pleases." Thus, though we cannot have perfect intellectual understanding of the relationship within the Godhead between Father and Son, we see that both carry different omnipotent authorities independently and in perfect agreement. We can see that Jesus' saying "Why callest me thou good?", in no way detracts from His dual godly nature.
In this context we can clearly see that the Jews were not mistakenly misinterpreting Jesus' intentions in John 5:16 or 10:31 as Baha'i belief would suggest. They wanted to stone Him because, indeed, He was truly claiming the station and authority of God. This, they felt, was blasphemy. But Jesus did not blaspheme. His claims were true. They were dramatic claims to be sure, and of such importance in their implication that He made no mistake about clearly relaying His intention, even in the life threatening situation of the synagogue where He might have been stoned. In John 8:56 He tells the Pharisees,
" 'Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.'
' You are not yet fifty years old', the Jews said to Him, 'and you have seen Abraham!'
'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!'
At this, they picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus hid Himself, slipping away from the temple grounds."
Of course the unbelieving enemies of Christ immediately set out to stone Him! Not only did He claim deity by asserting that He was in existence before Abraham and that He was Abraham's hope for joy, but He even used for Himself the Old Testament name for God given by God to Moses; "I am". There was left no doubt of His intentions.
Matthew 22:41, Mark 12:35, and Luke 20:41, however, tell us something different. They all relay the same account. It is a dramatic one in which Jesus reveals the deity of the Messiah. At Matthew 22:41 we read,
"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 'What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?' 'The son of David', they replied. ' How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls Him Lord? For he says, "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.' " If then David calls Him 'Lord' how can he be his son?' No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask Him any more questions."
How indeed could Jesus, the Messiah, be both son and Lord of David? Christ does not answer the question, for the answer is obvious to one who has faith in the Word and power of God. If Jesus' person is that of a mortal man, He must only be David's son. The mortal lineage of the Messiah is from David who lived and died long before Jesus' incarnation. But as God in the flesh Christ assumes a duality in His nature. He is both mortal son and immortal Lord of David. There is no other reason Jesus would have posed this most revealing question about Psalm 110 that proclaims the deity of His person so clearly. He made it clear, through Old Testament Scripture, that theMessiah was not only the son of David, but also the Lord of David. Therefore not only man, but also God the Son.
Peter confirms this in Acts 2:36 after having just quoted the same Psalm verse. He tells all who were present at the Pentecost,
"Let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
Jesus was both Lord (God), and Christ (man). If God confirms Him both Lord and Christ who can refute it? If David calls Him both Lord and son who can deny Him? If God tells Isaiah that He will give His glory to no other, and yet Jesus is glorified in God and God in Jesus, as we saw in John 13:31, who can fail to accept the truth?
And so we see that, according to Scripture, Abdul Baha is wrong when he tells us that "...for every being their is a point which it cannot overpass; that is to say, he who is in the condition of servitude, however far he may progress in gaining limitless perfections, will never reach the condition of Deity." There is ONE man who clearly meets the qualifications for the "condition of Deity"; Jesus Christ.
Thus, the Scriptural Christ is not the same as the Baha'i one. I maintain that it is not enough to say, "we honor Christ", as Baha'is insist they do, when the Christ they honor, in real terms, bares little or no resemblance to the one portrayed in Scripture. All Christians believe that Christ came to die for their sins, because God's Word unswervingly proclaims it. This is a basic underlying theme of Scripture. It is the non-Christian, the anti-Christian, who does not hold this faith because he does not believe what the Scriptures tell us of Him. Just a few of the many verses from God's Word that proclaim this truth will suffice to show that Baha'i's assertion that Christians misinterpret Scripture concerning Christ's Mission first and foremost as "Messiah" is a wrong assertion. It is not according to our misguided "perception" that Christians hold their Messianic belief in Christ. It is by universal and original intention of the Gospel message.
John 10:11,
"(Jesus) I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Ac.4:10,
"It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man (Peter) stands before you healed... Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Romans 3:21,
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood."
Romans 10:9,
"...if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."
Galatians 3:13,
"Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.""
Hebrews 2:9,
" But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone."
Collosians 1:19,
"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (Jesus), and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
Once you (Christians) were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation."
2Corinthians 5:15,
"And he (Jesus) died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again."
1Corinthians 2:2,
"I (Paul) resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified."
1 Corinthians 15:2,
" (Paul says) By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of FIRST IMPORTANCE : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he wasburied, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."
It is not by Christians' naive "perception" that the cross of Christ is proclaimed. It is by God's Word, "passed on to you as of first importance", His having, "died for our sins "according to the Scriptures", His having been buried and raised on the third day "according to the Scriptures", and that He "appeared to many" to prove the literal reality of His Mission as Messiah.
Now a common observation can be seen in this dichotomy. I have often pointed it out with respect to other definitively objective clashes between Scripture's clearly intended Message, (The Bible), and Baha'i theology.
1) Baha'i religion obviously does not accept Scripture's portrayal of and defining of "Jesus", "The Christ", "The Messiah". No more does it accept the Scriptural portrayal of Him as Messiah than did the Pharisees. It redefines Him in a totally different way than the Bible does. The comparison of Baha'i's appraisal of Christian's supposedly naive "perception" of Jesus as Messiah (as opposed to His having just been a "good teacher"), with the Scriptures I have cited points this out clearly. There is a basic and legitimate rift between what the Bible tells us, and what Baha'i doctrine asserts, symbolism notwithstanding, concerning the prime Mission of Christ.
2) This reality crumbles the integrity of the Baha'i doctrinal foundation that would have us believe that all religions are really saying the same thing. There is no justification by symbolism here. Scripture itself, not just Christian "interpretation", paints an objectively different definition of Jesus than Baha'i religion can accept.
So, once again, it becomes meaningless for Baha'is to say, as they so often do, that, "I think we believe in Christ more than some Christians." For it isn't really Christ at all that they are actually believing in! Until you define what you mean by "Christ" (and unless and until He is defined in agreement with original Scriptural intentions) you could just as well say that you "believe" in "Christ" more than those "Christians" who don't agree that He was a poached egg. As we have seen by looking at this issue of Redemption, Baha'i religion is speaking of some other fellow from the one in the Gospels.
In discussion, Baha'is sometimes twist the Scripturally portrayed messianic Salvation by Grace into a heresy of supposed Christian misinterpretation in an attempt to dismiss it .They will argue that some feel that we are saved by grace through believing in Christ no matter what they do and give as example the Mafia king who kills his enemies yet attends church the next day expecting forgiveness and grace from Christ.
But this is a non example of a true Christian. And, besides this, Paul clearly points out to us how grace does not negate our responsibility for works, but that works will be the inevitable aroma from the fire of true faith.
Romans 5:19,
" For just as through the disobedience of the one man (Adam) the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man (Jesus) the many will be made righteous. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?"
And so, we find in this another passage proclaiming our Salvation by Jesus' death and Resurrection as the prime focus of Scripture's message. But more to the immediate point, it clearly shows us that Baha'is are wrong when they paint a picture of our Messianic hope as some kind of cheap license to keep on sinning and be saved "no matter what they do." That is not the intention of either the true believer or the Scriptural concept of Salvation by Grace. It may indeed be the intention of the Mafia king however. God is well able to keep from being fooled.
The issue in terms of Christ's station and Mission is over what man's hope for eternal Salvation is. The issue is just how anyone can hope to stand justified when they are called before God to explain their life. Scripture teaches that without faith in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth there is no Salvation. That is, recognition and active acceptance of mankind's hopelessly sinful need for God's personal sacrifice of compassionate forgiveness. This, Scripture tells us, was done, "once for all", through the personal sacrifice of God the Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
According to Jesus Himself, no matter how "good" you think your life was, it won't be even close to good enough to justify your being with Him in glory without the purifying Salvation that comes through Jesus Christ alone. Scripture tells us that man is terminally ill with sin and that the only way to recover (survive spiritually) is to relent pride in any hope for self justification, and submit to humble acceptance of God's own PERSONAL intervention on our behalf as Savior. You may disagree. Baha'i belief certainly does. But it is the unquestionable intention of the New Testament to proclaim it. Thus it stands as a definitive and non trivial difference between Baha'i belief, and Scripture (the Bible).
Scripture doesn't just teach us that Christ came from God but that He IS God. And to say that we must simply believe that He "came from God" is another of those subtle attempts to open the door for others who may have "come from God", but who don't hold the singularly exclusive authority attributed to Jesus in Scripture. Jesus does not tell us that we need to be ready for an endless succession of ever more advanced revelations of manifestations. His is a message that always centers on mankind's lostness in sin, and His own personal, exclusive, messianic solution to that condition, and a universal warning against ANY "other" claimants to His return (He says specifically to "reject them all"). The message of the Gospel is that Jesus' death and Resurrection are as timely and carry as much power today as they ever did. The Resurrection carries ultimate, singular, and, as Scripture says, "once for all", power. There can be no more "advanced" revelation beyond the Cross and Resurrection of Christ. Once you are saved from damnation and justified to enter His Kingdom you have realized the highest and most important Revelation God has to offer. Thus, Baha'u'llah can have nothing to tell us that is not, at best, anticlimactic in the extreme. Unfortunately, what he attempts to do, which is much more spiritually destructive, is to try to dismantle God's exclusive, climactic, ultimate expression of compassion on our behalf, so that he can make it fit into his own self made theological framework. One cannot commonize Christ the way Baha'i doctrine does without defaming Scripture's true intended description of Him.
Let's look at a popular analogy used to symbolize how the Baha'i manifestation, while being considered a perfect reflection of God, is not to actually be considered God incarnate. The manifestations are said to be like mirrors and God like the sun whose light they reflect into the world of humanity. Thus, while we look at them and see "God", they are actually only considered by Baha'i doctrine to be reflecting God and are not themselves to be considered God. Now let us look at Phillipians 2:5 to see if Jesus fits into this concept ;
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness."
We observe that Scripture says that Jesus is, "by very nature", God and so we must thereby grant Him incarnate deity far beyond the intentions of the Baha'i picture of a manifestation "mirror". His mortal humbleness (which is equal to His perfect expression of His incarnate mortal aspect) takes nothing away from this clearly stated fact. A mirror is not, "by very nature", the sun (to return to the popular Baha'i analogy). It is "by very nature" glass and metallic paint. Once again what Scripture REALLY says is diametrically opposed to the redefined Baha'i Jesus.
We should observe that in Scripture, Jesus' claim that no one but Himself has ever been to heaven definitively sets Him apart and aboveevery other prophet and religious leader for all time. Here we see in His very own words, not the claim to be a Messenger in common with other religious leaders, but the "one and only" Son of God." Jesus is telling us here (in contrast to any other mortals who might claim to be a common "manifestation") that only He, Jesus, has been to heaven. It represents, to say the least, a non trivial distinction from other supposed "manifestations". When we set this beside Baha'u'llah's admonition that, (Gleanings 59-60), "Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God,hath repudiated His signs and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.", we find that Scripture and Baha'i doctrine just don't line up.
On page 78 of Gleanings Baha'u'llah says, "God. the Creator, saith: There is no distinction whatsoever among the bearers of My Message. They all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise to be permitted. Every true prophet hath regarded His Message as fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone before him."
But here we find a vast distinction wherein Jesus alone amongst any mortal being has been in heaven. Considering the spiritual nature of what we discuss with God as the prime focus, I don't know how much more of a "distinction" Baha'is would need before they came to realize just how exclusively such a statement places Christ above other presumed religious teachers?
Baha'is, at this point along such a line of discussion often point out that in the Bible it is recorded that both Enoch and Elijah ascended bodily into heaven. In Genesis 5:24 we can read, "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away." And in 2 Kings 2:11, "... suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared ... and Elijah went up into heaven in a whirlwind."
But such observations utterly miss the point Jesus was making. Observations about Enoch or Elijah ascending bodily into heaven are irrelevant in relation to what Jesus is claiming. The point was not to say that no one was in heaven! The point was to say that no one on Earth, in any position to ever have taught about heaven here within the mortal realm, has ever been there. Where is the Scripture that shows that the PERSON of Enoch ever came back to teach anyone about heaven? Elijah, the individual person, may have been taken up TO heaven in a whirlwind, but he has never come back down in one to tell us about it. Jesus utterly exclusive claim in this regard has serious and profound implications. He claims here to be the ONLY human that has ever walked the earth having come FROM heaven. Such a claim directly points to His concept of Himself as God incarnate, in a position of singular distinction infinitely above ANY former or subsequent "manifestations".
We see this clearly when we study the implications of Jesus claim from a greater biblical context. Such a broad based biblical context always needs to be a factor heavily relied upon before any legitimate final decision about how to interpret such a Scripture as this one is made. Passages like Proverbs 30:4 give us such a perspective;
"Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, <<<and the name of his son>>>? Tell me if you know!"
The KEY phrase to keep in mind as we compare this scripture with what Jesus is saying in John 3:13 is not the part of the question that asks mankind, "Who has gone up to heaven...". It is the more significant part of the question that asks who has gone up to heaven, "and come down?". "What is His name", the proverb asks, "and the name of His Son?" Jesus answers the question clearly at John 3:13. God the Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Significantly he answers the question in a singularly exclusive manner. NO ONE but He himself has been there and come down.
Significantly, the inescapable implications of Christ's Words here are sorely telling on Baha'i doctrine's attempt to commonize the would be "manifestations" of the world religions. Baha'i doctrine says, for example, that many former religious founders from various world religions before Jesus' "dispensation" were true and genuine "manifestations". Even within the Judeo religious tradition out of which Jesus Himself came we find that Baha'i doctrine considers such religious leaders as Adam, Noah, and Moses as "manifestations". And Baha'u'llah specifically disallows us to make ANY distinctions between any of these manifestations concerning their mutually equal personal knowledge of spiritual truth. On pg 50 of Gleanings he tells us,
"... they (the Manifestations) are all sent down of heaven of the Will of God, and as they arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they, therefore, are regarded as one soul and the same person... Even as He (God) hath revealed: 'No distinction do we make between any of His Messengers.' ...Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an revealed, 'I am all the Prophets. Likewise He saith: 'I am thee first Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jesus."
Yet Jesus has obviously made a personal claim at John 3:13 that is diametrically opposed to that concept. NO ONE ON THIS EARTH, Jesus says, (not Adam, or Moses or Noah, ... or Buddha, or Confucius...) has been to heaven but only the "Son of Man", Jesus Himself. He creates the exact type of distinction (and an utterly exclusive one) that Baha'u'llah says cannot be made. As I have often pointed out, if this kind of observation does nothing more than to reveal the objective and fundamental rift between legitimate Scriptural doctrine and Baha'i, it thereby effectively reveals a fatal flaw in this religion that tries to rationalize an illusory unity across the world religions in utter disregard for the real, significant and profound differences that are legitimately to be found amongst them.
In an attempt to draw a parallel between Christians rejection of Baha'u'llah with the Pharisees rejection of Christ Baha'is often quote Jesus,
"Had they believed in Moses, they would have believed in Me."
Baha'is will interpret that, as the leading clergy of His day were bickering over their interpretation of the Old Testament and had their own ideas of the Messiah to come, and miserably failed to recognize Him, so too Christians in their narrow literal view of Scripture fail to recognize Baha'u'llah. "Are we going to draw a lesson from history or repeat the same mistake?", Baha'is warn us.
But we can only "draw a lesson from history", by not making the same LITERAL mistake that history shows the Pharisees to have made. That is, rejecting Jesus' singular and exclusive station and mission. We can only "repeat the same mistake" in our day by doing EXACTLY what the Jewish leaders of Jesus day did; failing to accept Jesus Christ of Nazareth for who He said He was, God the Son, eternal and singular Messiah and Redeemer of all humanity for all time.
In another way Baha'is criticize Scripture's exclusive claim to Christ as the singular way to truth and Life by presenting a numbers game where popular majority in the world concerning spiritual truth is supposed to show that Christians represent a naive religiocentric group whose delusion is proved by its minority status. Baha'is will retort, "We have as much love and reverence for Him as you do. Our only difference is that you say that Jesus has been, was, and always will be the only Revelation from God. You will have a very difficult time selling that notion to the other four billion non-Christian population of the world."
In the first place Christ never said it would be a "majority" who would characterize the true faith. He says many are called and few are chosen. He says that in the world, "men will hate you for My Name's sake." This Baha'i argument wants to certify truth by majority rule. This, in and of itself, is a clear indicator of a misguided spiritual outlook according to Scripture. The Jewish "chosen" people were NEVER a world majority. They were a very select minority with very specific values and beliefs at odds with the majority of other peoples that surrounded them. And even from within that first "chosen" people, God seeks a faithful "remnant", not the majority.
The more important deception, with respect to this typical Baha'i response, is in this business of stating how much love, honor, and respect Baha'is have for Jesus. I can brag and proclaim how I just LOVE my new Lamborghini. But when I take you out to the garage to see it, and it's a Pinto, you might be justified to question my mental acuity. The point is that Baha'is keep proclaiming that they love Jesus. But when you define terms and see what they really MEAN by this "Jesus", (define who they think He really is), they are perhaps deceiving themselves, but not anyone who has a Bible based definition of Christ (the Biblical concept of "Messiah"). They do NOT love Jesus. For the Baha'i Jesus is a non Scriptural fake Jesus. The Baha'i Jesus as a kindly and "wise" teacher of past truths from a bygone age by which those of that time might learn to "change their behavior" so as to "attain to the shores of that most great ocean by our own innate powers", is not the Messiah of Scripture. The Jesus whose "dispensation" has gone out of date is distinctly not the Savior Jesus of the Bible.Thus, Baha'is' proclamation is meaningless because it does not recognize or concede the vast world of difference in the "Jesus" they say they "love", and the very different true one portrayed in Scripture.
In comparing the Baha'i concept of manifestations as still only mortal "mirrors" of God, with Scripture's portrayal of Christ as God incarnate (true and actual God in the flesh), I think of the Scriptures that go out of their way to tell us specifically that Jesus referred to Himself as "I AM" to the great consternation of the Pharisees who knew all too well exactly what Jesus was saying in context of the Old Testament name for God that God Himself had given to Moses. I and the Father are one. If you have seen the Father you have seen me. The Son (Jesus) Judges mankind and not the Father. The Son (Jesus) is the person who creates "all that was created". The intention here is far from the Baha'i notion from Gleanings pg 59-60 that says of "manifestations",
"Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers."
On the contrary we find at Hebrews 3:3, for example, that,
"Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses (a supposed "manifestation"), just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."
Here is true biblical symbolism clearly showing Christ's deity. Moses is represented in simile as the house but Christ is the builder of the house. And, as we know that God is the builder of everything, we find Jesus' infinitely greater station.
If we put Scriptures like this into the context of John 1:3 we instantly see the vast difference in Baha'i's redefined interpretation as opposed to Scriptures' clear intention. Jesus is personally and specifically attributed greater honor than Moses directly in association with His having been the Creator in the exact meaning of God being that Creator.
Christ as, "eternal Savior of all mankind", is obviously incompatible with the idea that Baha'u'llah could have had any "higher" or more "advanced" revelation. It is a singularly exclusive claim that leaves no room for other "manifestations". But how can Baha'i religion find it possible to deny Jesus His first priority in this Mission as Messiah? Jesus as a teacher taught us that loving our enemies was a higher spiritual love than loving those who "deserved" our love. He said to love our enemies and do good to those who revile us. He said that our love for those who love us showed little of high or advanced spiritual character compared to the love we might give to those who did not love or appreciate us. For He observed that even the wicked often love those who love them back. He defined high godly love in this way. Therefore, If Baha'is really believe that Jesus was a perfect mirror of God's truth, then how can they refuse the literal reality of His prime Mission as Messiah? How can they fail to recognize it as far above His role as teacher? For if He told us that this kind of love was the higher expression of holy love, then must we not see this attribute as a reflection of the nature of God Himself? How could we believe that God would tell us that this behavior was highest in spiritual value, and not see it literally expressed by Him who told us it was godly? God tells us that loving our enemies is a high and holy love. It is only true because He reveals the reality of that spiritual truth as a genuine godly attribute of Himself in His love for us, His enemies in sin, by the sacrifice of Jesus upon a cross. Without Christ's sacrifice of interceding rescue on our behalf, (His enemies in rebellious sinfulness), all that He taught about this holy love would not be true of God, and thus would not be a perfect reflection of God. Jesus' highest spiritual revelation to us comes as God's personal demonstration of this most perfect love. There is no higher revelation, no possibly greater dispensation.
Christ, as God the Son, is certainly a perfect reflection of God's truth. For Colossians 1:15 tells us about Jesus;
"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him."
But this passage also reveals that He was infinitely more than just a "reflection" of God. It serves to point out just why the Baha'i view of Him as a "teacher" among many and with a now less advanced dispensation is completely false. His is the eternal image of God's perfection, in no way dimmed by mankind's limitations in some kind of lesser, past and passe' dispensation. His Revelation of God's highest attribute is a personal, and quite literal one. It is a model of highest spiritual "advancement". For it is the revealing of God almighty to us, once for all, in the flesh of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Creator, Judge of all Mankind, by whom all things were made whether on Earth or in Heaven, who is one with the Father, and who, by virtue of His utterly perfect life (possible only by way of His true incarnate deity) made Him worthy to stand as a living sacrifice for all the sins of all humanity for all time. What higher "revelation" is there? None!
1. Back Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions, pg. 104