 |
Moses and Adam; Sinners |
 |
|
Moses and Adam; Sinners |
|
Well established Baha'i doctrine says that the many religious founders from various world religions were all true and genuine "manifestations". This springs from, and is part of, the Baha'i teaching that tells us that all major world religions are, at their root, the same "true" religion, and that it is only subsequent corruption of the original founder's intentions that have made them seem different. Essential to this concept is the belief that all of these "manifestations" are to be considered as "sinless souls" 1. Even within the Jewish 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 as such, utterly sinless. As another aspect of this concept of unifying commonality amongst "manifestations", 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."
But this idea is refuted within Scripture. This is especially easy to observe since the Baha'i doctrine is inclusive of several biblical characters who can all be compared with one another from within the biblical context. We thereby have a clear and valid opportunity to discover that the teaching that they are all equally "sinless" and, "one soul and the same person", is simply untrue. Certainly this is an untrue teaching when comparing all of the biblical characters that are considered "manifestations", with Jesus. Baha'u'llah flatly makes the assertion that no distinctions are to be made between the manifestations "persons" or "messages" (Gleanings pg 59-60 ,"Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God...).
We find, however, at Hebrews 3:3, a Scripture whose implications make that statement an impossibility when comparing Moses with Our Lord Jesus.
"Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, 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."
If we put Scriptures like this into the context of John 1:3 we instantly see a vast difference between the Baha'i's comparison of Moses and Jesus, and 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.
But this passage in Hebrews bears careful analysis. The "Just as" that opens this specific use of analogy designates that the author was drawing a SIMILE at that point in the passage. This is a separate and DIFFERENT usage than the metaphorical sense in which he then goes on to use the symbol of a "house", referring to the Church of believers specifically as "being" the "house". Similes compare parallel, like things, metaphors equate like things. The author of Hebrews, initially in the passage, draws a simile in his analogy of a house and its builder. Moses, in this initial usage, is being compared to, "like", <<<a>>> (any) house (simile).
Notice that there is obviously a legitimate metaphorical overlap between the author's general comparative simile of a house and its builder, and the metaphorical usage he immediately then alludes to wherein we, the body of believers, are "the house". Moses is not "THE" House in the metaphorical sense that the Church is. He only represents the house in simile. But Jesus, generally in the simile, but also specifically in the metaphorical usage represents the builder. Let's really look carefully again at the passage and see what intended meaning can be drawn from it. AND, that meaning will have to fit in naturally within the rest of the biblical context as well.
Hebrews 3:1
"Therefore, holy brothers, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, the apostle and high priest whom we confess. He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God's house.
(here begins the general comparative simile)
<<<Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, 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. Moses was faithful as a servant in all God's house, testifying to what would be said in the future. But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we <<<are>>> his house (metaphor), if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast."
The simile says that Jesus is "like" a builder as compared to Moses who is "like" a house. Jesus is portrayed here as being worthy of more honor than Moses in the general sense that the builder of <<ANY>>> house has greater honor than the house itself. This, one notices, is not a difference of degree, but a complete difference in fundamental quality. It is distinctly against the Baha'i idea that the only difference that allows Jesus more honor than Moses comes, "in the intensity of their revelation and the comparative potency of their light". A house and its builder do not differ only in that quantitative sense. The qualitative distinction given Jesus in this simile is specifically opposed to the Baha'i idea found in Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah that says things like,
Gleanings pg 50; "Even as He (God) hath revealed: 'No distinction do we make between any of His Messengers.'"
pg 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."
pg 78 "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."
Jesus is QUALITATIVELY preferred in "honor" in the simile presented in Hebrews in exactly the fashion Baha'u'llah says He must not be. Thus, Baha'u'llah's doctrine stands against the Scriptural intention with respect to the station of Jesus shown in Peter's simile in Hebrews.
We see that Jesus is given a non Baha'i distinction in honor above Moses in the simile. This infinitely qualitative superiority in station, coupled with the specific representation of Him symbolically as a builder, while proclaiming that God is the builder of everything, more than implies that Jesus was God the Son, God incarnate. By putting the indications in this passage into the context of other Scriptural references concerning Christ's station, one inexorably comes to the conclusion that Jesus must be, in fact, considered "God the Son". I will summarize with reasoned logic here because it bears on what the intention is in Hebrews 3.
A) God is the builder of everything. (Hebrews 3, presented as hard fact, no symbolism to interpret)
B) "The Christ" is the distinct personal agent that created everything (the master builder). (Colossians 1:15, presented as hard fact, no symbolism to interpret)
C) Jesus IS "the Christ" incarnate, in person. (Heb. 13:8,"<<<JESUS>>> Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. " Jesus' "person" defined as BEING that of the singular and eternal identity of "the Christ" , presented as hard fact, no symbolism to interpret)
D) Thus, recognizing that "the Christ" is a "person" distinct from the "Father", Jesus must be "God the Son", God incarnate, and certainly thus infinitely greater in station than Moses. Hebrews represents this utter distinction in the quality of their stations clearly.
Let us look at another way in which Baha'i theology attempts to equate Moses' station with Jesus'. Concerning Moses' relationship to God, Baha'is commonly point out the following Old Testament passage:
"Then He (God) said, "Hear now my words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; He is faithful in all My house. I speak with Him face to face, even plainly and not in dark sayings; And He sees the form of the Lord. (Num. 12:6-8)"
It is then deduced that the passage shows that Moses is far greater than, and qualitatively different from, any 'mere' prophet such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and the like. Though He (like Jesus) is sometimes referred to in the Bible as a prophet, Moses, we are told, belongs to a higher category altogether. From a Baha'i perspective, the difference resides in His having been a Manifestation of God. He is thus said to have been a direct Revealer of God's word and nature, occupying a station to which no ordinary human, or even mere prophet, can aspire.
To carry this assertion further, let's remember that one of the distinguishing features these "manifestations" allegedly share in their "qualitative" difference from other men, is their "sinlessness". This is a definitive Baha'i doctrine. Yet, Scripture paints no such common ground between Moses and Jesus as "manifestations" with sameness of station, whose differences are only of revealed degree (progressive revelation). Moses is definitively guilty as a sinner. At Deuteronomy 32:50 God Himself says to Moses,
"There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites."
God specifically holds both Moses and Aaron accountable for their sinful lack of upholding His holiness among the Israelites. There is no possible way to see Moses as being a sinless manifestation when these Words direct from the mouth of God are considered. He himself is said to have fallen short, guilty and worthy of punishment.
The same is seen again at Numbers 20:12, and once again it is God Himself speaking;
"But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I give them."
The Baha'i argument of a commonality between Moses and Jesus as "manifestations" with a commonly shared qualitative distinction is wrong. Such specifically revealing Scripture as just presented shows that the Bible's teaching is definitively at odds with Baha'i theology. As shown earlier, the simile in Hebrews 3 emphatically disagrees with the idea that Jesus and Moses share a common, sinless quality in station. The symbolism there reveals that builders of houses are infinitely different, and greater in quality, that the houses they build.
What Baha'i theology fails to concede is the inevitable personal implications of Jesus' personally <<<being>>> a "perfect" and "sinless" soul. It is a condition exclusive to God. It is a condition of deity. It isn't indicative of a mere "human soul" as Baha'i doctrine considers Jesus, but is definitive of the singular, incarnate, "Christ-God-Person". As such, we find that Scripture's portrayal of Jesus as an utterly and completely "sinless soul", is a singular one compared to all the rest of humanity. Recall that Jesus said that even though John the Baptist was as holy as any merely mortal man, he was still "less than least" in the Kingdom of God. No merely human person is utterly sinless according to Jesus' teaching. Those Old Testament figures who were said to be "blameless" can also be Scripturally shown to have sinned, the expletive obviously used as a device of intended exaggeration not to be taken literally. Particularly relevant to the Baha'i- Christian dialogue, this is significantly true of Moses, whom Baha'i doctrine nevertheless considers a "sinless" Manifestation, against Scripture's teaching. Moses broke faith, Noah became drunk. But Jesus was UTTERLY without sin, tempted as we are in every way, yet was without sin.
For example, the word translated "blameless" in the Old Testament, which underlies the Gospel's usage, indicates that the person accepted God's truth and chose to strive to live by it. Not that they were utterly sinless. When that person sinned, God's way provided for opportunities for restoration. The definitive example of this is David. We know that David sinned greatly. Yet he correctly pled his blamelessness in prayer (Ps. 18:23;26:1). Noah is another such example. Genesis 6:9 says of Noah that, " Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God." Notice again the usage. Like Moses, the description is given as being relative to "the people of his time." For in 9: 21 it also says of Noah that he "became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent." Such idiomatic character introduction is NOT meant to mean utter sinlessness. Alternate examples of usage demonstrate the context clearly.
Thus we see in context, that from one instance of a person's being introduced as "blameless" we cannot deduce that it means absolute and utter sinlessness as in the case of Jesus. It wouldn't be definitive for Jesus either if that was all there was with which to deduce it. There are too many other instances wherein such usage is proven not to mean such sinlessness. The deduction of utter sinlessness could only come from multiple separate Scriptural indications. I argue that there is only one person for whom such a context of support for utter sinlessness exists, Jesus. Jesus openly challenged the Pharisees, "can any of you accuse me of sin." And Scripture tells us clearly and specifically that He was like us in every way, except that he never sinned. There is no possibility for a lesser meaning as in other biblical instances one could cite. For example, In the case of Zacharias and Elizabeth in the Gospel of Luke, like Moses and Noah in the Old Testament, there is concrete Scriptural evidence that refutes the wooden, literal sense in which one might interpret "blameless" as meaning "sinless" here. Luke 1:6 introduces Zacharias and Elizabeth (the Parents of John the Baptist) in the following way:
"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commands and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
However, we later discover that Zacharias was punished by God for EXACTLY the same personal sin that Moses and Aaron were guilty of! He broke faith with God when he doubted Gabriel and was rendered mute for it. He sinned and was punished.
Luke 1:18
"Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? (that Elizabeth would bear a son). I am an old man and my wife is well along in years." The angel answered, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, <<< because you did not believe my words>>>, which will come true at their proper time."
Zacharias sinned and was punished, as was Moses.
Scripture tells us that all mere mortals are sinners and reveals only Jesus Christ of Nazareth as being "utterly" without sin. Scripture's refutation of the Baha'i concept that Moses was "sinless" reveals the unbiblical Baha'i doctrine that others (allegedly the host of Baha'i manifestations) can also be "sinless". The whole Gospel concept of Jesus as Messiah rests upon the foundation from Isaiah, that only God is worthy because only God is truly righteous (sinless). As Jesus said, only God is good. Thus, by definition, to be Messiah, to have the personal worthiness to assume the role as Messiah -Savior, Jesus HAD to be God incarnate, infinitely greater in station than Moses, (or anyone else).
It is important at this point to note that the Baha'i perspective I describe in this presentation is not a straw man. It accurately represents AUTHORITATIVE Baha'i teaching, not just well meaning, but misinformed, Baha'i's personal opinions. I have often been wrongly accused of developing an irrelevant apologetic case because it has been based upon internet discussion with non manifestations whose beliefs are not authoritative. This has always seemed like a shallow dodge since the Baha'i perspective argued in such discussion is specifically an attempt to represent official Baha'i belief, supported by specific passages from authoritative Baha'i leaders. We will discover that the Baha'i positions presented here are the same as, and derive from, that of Abdul Baha. Thus, the following comparative analysis is very relevant, revealing true differences Scriptural concepts and established official Baha'i theological doctrines.
Baha'i doctrine takes issue with a plain reading of the Old Testament passages I cited that reveal Moses as a sinner. In Some Answered Questions, Abdu'l Baha explains that God is here addressing Moses not as an individual but in His capacity of representative of His people. Though outwardly directed at Moses, God's rebuke is said to be really intended for the children of Israel. (SAQ 167)"
Let's quote that passage so that we are certain that we are, in fact, accurately representing Baha'i exegesis of the texts in question.
Some Answered Questions, Pg 167
"EXPLANATION OF THE REBUKES ADDRESSED BY GOD TO THE PROPHETS
Question.--In the Holy Books there are some addresses of reproach and rebuke directed to the Prophets. Who is addressed, and for whomis the rebuke?
Answer.--All the divine discourses containing reproof, though apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the people may not be discouraged and disheartened. They, therefore, appear to be addressed to the Prophets; but though outwardly for the Prophets, they are in truth for the people and not for the Prophets.
... in Numbers, chapter 20, verse 23: "And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled against My word at the water of Meribah"; and in verse 13: "This is the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the Lord, and He was sanctified in them."
Observe: the people of Israel rebelled, but apparently the reproach was for Moses and Aaron. As it is said in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 26: "But the Lord was wroth with Me for your sakes, and would not hear Me: and the Lord said unto Me, Let it suffice Thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter." Now this discourse and reproach really refer to the children of Israel, ... This address and reproach appeared to be for Moses and Aaron, but in reality they were for the people of Israel. "
This, then, clearly and accurately represents the official Baha'i exegesis and interpretation of the specific texts under consideration.
But when we read the text itself we find that this is an unacceptable, even impossible interpretation. Moses, who "on account of the people" is indeed greatly TEMPTED by them, then greatly sins of his own accord. He specifically and personally (and evidently in great anger) speaks rudely to the people in a way that did not honor God before them and struck the rock God specifically told him to "speak" to. Moses rebelled against God's direct command and will.
Psalm 106:32 is a separate scripture which helps establish the inarguably clear biblical position. We see that the psalmist tells us that, "By the waters of Meribah they angered the Lord, and trouble came to Moses because of them; for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, <<<AND RASH WORDS CAME FROM MOSES' LIPS>>>."
The only sense that the people could be seen as "causing" Moses to come into trouble was in that they most certainly were the source of his temptation. It is absolutely against the text, as seen from a fuller biblical context, to say that he was punished in some substitutionary sense for sins he himself had not committed. Such exegesis and interpretation is awful and impossible. But I recognize that Scripturally this is a desperate situation for Baha'i theology which must try to rationalize away the scriptural intention. To speak "rashly" in the position Moses was in, and in regards to the command of God before the people, is SIN, personal sin. Moses' sin. Such a specific passage reflecting upon the incident as Pslam 106 reinforces the plain and obvious meaning of the text in Numbers and Deuteronomy and completely breaks the already unreasonably strained Baha'i substitutionary interpretation. God Himself tells Moses in Scripture that he will not see the holy land because HE HIMSELF (and Aaron) "broke faith" before the people. Psalm 109 inarguably confirms that as the clear intention of Scripture.
There is yet another aspect of consideration in terms of the texts in question from Numbers and Deuteronomy that render the Baha'i interpretation of Moses as a sinless substitutionary intercessor as an impossible interpretation. The only way in which you could assert that the context of those passages is supposed to indicate Moses as an sinless intercessor, is if you asserted that Aaron was too. The two persons are inseparably connected in the passage with respect to the sin God is speaking of and that they will both be punished equally for. Certainly Baha'i doctrine does not say that Aaron, who fashioned the golden calf idol when Moses went up to receive the ten commandments, was a sinless manifestation. Yet their inseparable association within the passages we have been discussing in terms of accountability before God for the same basic and personal sin (and with the same punishment) would leave one's interpretation no alternative.
One also notices that God's accusation is specifically against Moses and Aaron personally. Two people. God's Words to Moses and Aaron, "both of you", is very specifically NOT "the people" who are being addressed here as the sinners. There is no reasonable possibility of interpreting it in the Baha'i way any more than one can in the Psalm where Moses himself personally spoke rashly before the people with his own lips (personal action).
But we are not left with only these passages with which to test the validity or invalidity of the Baha'i rationale for deflecting personal responsibility from Moses for sin. At Exodus 4:14 we find that, "Then the Lord's anger burned against Moses" . Compare this to Jesus. Did the Lord's anger ever "burn" "against" Jesus? According to Jesus' own Words we find that this Scriptural indication proves that Moses could not have been sinless and a "perfect" reflection of God as Baha'i theology would have him. We always find that Jesus and the Father are in PERFECT agreement. Jesus, recall, was confronted by the Pharisees who asked where He got the power to perform His miracles and whether or not it might have been from Satan. He replied that a house divided against itself cannot stand. How can we then see Moses in the same station as Jesus if Scripture says that the Lord's anger burned against him? A perfect reflection is not what we find here. Perfect agreement is broken. We do indeed see a qualitative difference. But it is one that stands personally between Moses and Jesus in Station. Not <<Moses and Jesus>>, as against other prophets. Moses was not in perfect agreement with the Father as Jesus is. Moses was a sinful human whom God's anger burned against at times. Holy among men, as was John the Baptist, yet in his sinful mortality as compared to the perfectly righteous standard of God, Moses too was "less than the least in the Kingdom", without the true substitutionary death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, God the Son, Messiah.
As Scripture definitively portrays Moses as a sinner, how much more so it does with respect to Adam. Again, Bahai doctrine says Adam was a "sinless" manifestation. Again, in order to do so, it has to try to build a case for Adam as a "substitutionary" bearer for others sins. Again, it is definitively against the Scriptural text, in ANY valid scholarly interpretation that respects the text.
Baha'i doctrine says that Adam was a representative for the sins of the people. One reading the Bible must immediately wonder, "what people?" For the story of Adam is one of beginnings. We could get into areas of such divergence in this area that it might be better not to try to develop arguments to prove how much and what kind of symbolic license would be proper here. One point to keep in mind however is that even if you see the story of Adam as symbolic, it would still have to be Scripturally seen to symbolize both mankind's earliest beginnings, and mankind's sinful fall from God's grace. Not his sinless intercession on behalf of others sins, but his need because of responsibility for his own sin, for that intercession from outside himself.
In Genesis 3:2 we see that Eve knew what God allowed and did not allow. She had knowledge for which she was personally responsible.
"The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"
In Genesis 3 both she and Adam sin when they knowingly break God's command.
"When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."
At ch 3:11 we see that Adam was also responsible as God asks him,
"...Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" The man (Adam) said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." ...Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." ...To Adam He (God) said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life."
There is no hint of even a symbolic possibility that these passages could indicate Adam as an intercessor for the sins of others. Once again we are dealing with the Words of God himself who specifically reprimands and punishes Adam (and Eve) for sin. Their own sin, specifically and personally ("Cursed is the ground BECAUSE OF YOU...")
Hosea 6:7 tells us that,
"Like Adam, they (Israel) have broken the covenant-- they were unfaithful to Me (God) there."
Here again we see that Baha'i doctrine is wrong in interpreting Adam as the sinless manifestation he is supposed to be. Adam himself is specifically guilty of sin, symbolism notwithstanding. Furthermore, we see here that Adam is distinguished as sinful in specifically seperate and independent distinction from the people. He is not a substitue for their sin, but is said to be sinful himself, just as they are sinful. Their sin as a people is said to be, "just like", Adam's sin as a person.
There is more that can be shown through the Old Testament (as if any more were needed), but it is also important to observe how New Testament Scripture corroborates the sinfulness of Adam. 1Corinthians 15:22 tells us that, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." Clearly we see by this bold comparison the exact opposite of the Baha'i attempt to make Adam a sinless manifestation, or seeing him as even an intercessor! For as in Christ is found the Salvation from the penalty of sin (death), Adam represents that very sin in mankind needy of the Salvation. The dichotomy established in this passage utterly precludes any possibility of the Baha'i view of Adam as a sinless intercessor being possible. To see Adam as a sinless manifestation is completely contrary to any possible legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Worst of All, Baha'i doctrine has taken the primary sinful dynamic representing the need for Jesus' genuine intercessory sacrificial death and Resurrection, and turned it into a like "messiah" type! He who first fell in the sinfullness that leaves us needy of Redemption is impossibly and blasphemously turned into a Savior from it!
One consideration that has been brought up is that of Jesus' baptism. It is argued that, just as Jesus' was baptized, though he was sinless, we can see that he became baptized in public in the same sense that other allegedly "sinless" manifestations also said or did things that might have indicated sin, even thought they weren't really sinners. It is true that Jesus was baptized as a model for us, even though he needed no personal repentance. He can be found to say that he did certain things for the express purpose of modeling to us what He Himself had no personal need for. But the specific example of this found in His baptism is anything but the same as what Abdul Baha proposes. For there is No deception involved in what happened at Jesus' baptism as there would be by ignoring Muhammad's open confession of sin as if it were a deceptive lie only meant to set some example for others. (Speaking of Muhammad in the Qur'an (48:1-2): 'Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory. That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favor unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path.')
And there is no contradiction as in the case of ignoring the definitive Scriptural indications of Moses' sin. We need to investigate the case of Jesus baptism without jumping to hasty conclusions.
Matthew 3:13 "Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
It is immediately obvious that John (and significantly Scripture by which we gain understanding) openly recognizes a vast distinction in Jesus' baptism from all others, and an immediate recognition that there was no sin that warranted any such act "for the remission of sins" with respect to Him personally, even to the point that he observes that Jesus should be the one baptizing him! Scripture is already openly portraying Jesus case as personally distinct from others and sinless. Thus, it is not a case wherein Jesus is falsely claiming sin he really doesn't have, but one in which He is accepting baptism in ritual fashion while allowing John to reveal that He is specifically not sinful.This is corroborated in Jesus' reply. Does He say, "Go ahead John. I need my sins washed clean"? No. He says to John, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented." He OPENLY concedes that it is to model perfect human behavior DESPITE the fact that John has just acknowledged His lack of need for it in terms of personal sin. Of course Scripture can be found elsewhere to claim that Jesus had no sin to cleanse by way of Baptizing. The point is that, unlike the Baha'i attempt to force others who claim personal sin (like Muhammad) into being deceptive liars who were really sinless (contradiction in terms), Jesus is utterly open and honest in claiming sinlessness and NEVER makes a confession such as Muhammad does. He does not lie and say that He is a sinner in His model of righteous behavior for us. Jesus openly reveals His baptism as being in the form of a ritual model for us and John's testimony in the Gospel passage helps reinforce the open concession of His sinlessness. Besides this, one needs to recognize that water Baptism in the NT is always defined as being in the name of Jesus, Jesus being the source of the cleansing itself. I would say that, once again, this consideration refutes any equating of the event of Jesus' Baptism as being the same as Moses' or Muhammad's openly referred to status as real sinners.
1Pe.3:21
"...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."
It is CLEAR in the NT that Jesus' baptism was not for the remission of His own sins, but as a model for us. It is not at all the same thing as Muhammad openly confessing to be a sinner, if it wasn't true. They aren't the same thing.
And so, in the end, we find that it is impossible to legitimately interpret the Moses or Adam of Scripture as being sinless, in any sense. That study also reveals Scripture's intention to distinguish Jesus of Nazareth as the only person who ever was, in all of humanity; and that, by virtue of His personal, incarnate deity. One set upon a quest for truth cannot accept a religion whose professions are so observably in error, set as they are against the demonstrable intentions of Holy Scripture.
Return 1. Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions, US 1990 pocket size ed. pg 170