Seeing With the Eye of God

Relationships Between Theology and Interpretation

Michael W. Sours
Published in the Baha'i Studies Review, vol. 1.1 (1991)

In Bah�'u'll�h's Writings there is no single method of interpretation, such as

allegorical, symbolical, typological, or literal, that is used exclusively for the
understanding of any major category of Scripture, be it prophecy, historical
narratives, or general explanatory texts.[1]
Bah�'u'll�h freely uses a variety of different forms of interpretation to explain
specific passages found in different categories of sacred texts. However, in some
instances He rejects interpretations that rely on these same methods. For example,
He may reject the literal interpretation of some prophecies while accepting the
literal interpretation of other prophecies. Moreover, in many instances He
indicates that more than one method of interpretation is applicable for
understanding a single passage. How then can an interpreter determine when one or
more methods of interpretation are applicable or inapplicable to a specific verse
in the Scriptures?
The answer to this question appears to be the knowledge of God's nature as
primarily revealed through the Manifestations of God. In other words, a sound
theology is essential to correct interpretation.[2] Examples of this relationship
between theology and interpretation can be found in Bah�'u'll�h's Book, the Kit�b-
i-Iq�n (The Book of Certitude). As the title and explanations in the book
indicate, the purpose of the book is to enable the religious seeker to attain
certainty in religious faith and understanding, both with regard to the
recognition of God's Manifestations and the interpretation of sacred texts. In
this paper the role of theology in Bah�'u'll�h's interpretations will be explored
by first presenting some of the basic characteristics of His theology as expressed
in the Kit�b-i-Iq�n and then by examining specific examples of interpretation
found in Bah�'u'll�h's own Writings. Finally, a type of distinction between
theological truth and historical truth will be briefly considered.
Theology in the Kit�b-i-Iq�n
In the Kit�b-i-Iq�n, Bah�'u'll�h appears to indicate that the nature of God
defines the nature of the Manifestations of God, which, in turn, defines the
nature of whatever the Manifestations have said. If this observation is correct
then understanding the nature of God is fundamental to understanding what has been
revealed by God. Since the primary source of the knowledge of God is what is
revealed in Scripture it follows that one does not necessarily precede the other,
rather they must go hand in hand. This suggests that interpretations of Scripture
should not conflict with the nature of God as revealed in Scripture.
This suggests that there may be numerous ways to interpret a Scriptural passage or
verse, all of which can legitimately be considered correct, but the strength of
any given interpretation would depend on whether or not it consciously or
unconsciously yielded meanings that reflect the true reality of God's nature. If
this is a valid assessment then it may provide us with a type of theological
principle for interpreting Scripture, which can be stated as follows: In order for
Scripture to be interpreted appropriately, it must be seen from the point of view
of God's attributes. Viewing Scripture from this point of view is what is
understood in this paper as the meaning of Bah�'u'll�h's statements wherein He say
we should try to see with "the eye of God".[3] The more an interpreter has some
conscious or intuitive knowledge of God, the more he or she can see Scripture with
the eye of God. Before looking at specific examples of interpretation in
Bah�'u'll�h's own writings, it may be helpful to state what is understood in this
paper by attributes of God.
Bah�'u'll�h explains that God is exalted beyond "every human attribute, such as
corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress", above "all
separation and union, all proximity and remoteness" (Kit�b-i-Iq�n 98). These
statements suggest that the reality of God is essentially incommunicable. We
cannot know or accurately imagine God's true reality in its complete essence apart
from the realization that He is entirely outside the limitations of corporeal
existence, that is, the plane of time and space (created existence). However,
through the primal act of creation, God has provided a channel by which human
beings can attain knowledge of what can be most appropriately attributed to His
nature: hence, the attributes of God.[4]
However, any given attribute, such as mercy, power, or love, is only attributable
to God's nature when it is in its purest, highest and most perfect state. For
example, love of one's country can be a reflection of God's love (so to speak),
but if this love excludes the love of other countries it falls short of God's all-
encompassing nature, and hence fails to reveal God truly or fully. Thus different
levels or stages of revelation exist. The more a attribute, such as love, grace,
or power, transcends the limitations of corporeal existence - that is, the more it
is beyond ascent and descent, egress and regress, above all separation and union,
all proximity and remoteness - the more it reveals the nature of God, and thus
becomes an attribute of God. This is the most essential point concerning theology
as understood in this paper. It is this point that effects most directly how one
interpretation is distinguished from another as being more theologically sound.
Bah�'u'll�h distinguishes between three stages of divine revelation (God Passes By
139). The first stage involves all created things, "all things, in their inmost
reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them"
(ibid. 102). The second stage involves "man" - i.e., humankind - "for in him are
potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God" (ibid. 101). The highest
stage involves God's appointed Mediators of His truth, that is, the Prophets and
Messengers of God, "of all men, the most accomplished, the most distinguished and
the most excellent are the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth [God]" (ibid. 103).
Those persons that Bah�'u'll�h refers to as "Manifestations of the Sun of Truth",
are in His words so perfect as to be, "expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of
the Invisibles" (ibid. 103), so much so, that were any of them to say, " 'I am
God!' He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto" (ibid. 178).
Thus, God is revealed in creation according to the relative capacities that exist
within the different levels of creation. In other words, all created things are
relative expressions of God's nature; however, the more something is able to, and
actually does, express attributes that are all-embracing and transcendent, the
more that created thing manifest the nature of God.[5] Since those persons
Bah�'u'll�h refers to as Manifestations of God[6] reveal God to the most perfect
degree possible in their lives and words, the record of their ministries and
teachings must also be a channel for the revelation of God's nature.
All these points relate to interpretation of sacred Scriptures because Scripture
is revelation of God; the meaning of revelation being to reveal. Hence, it seems
to follow that for any written texts to be identifiable as a Revelation of God it
must in some way reveal God or reflect what can be identified as relating to His
character and will. This basic point suggest that any interpretation that fails to
reflect or see within authentic Scripture something attributable to God is
probably contrary to the underlying nature and intent of Scripture. Said more
concisely, if the interpretation fails to discover in the sacred Scriptures what
is most befittingly attributable to God it is likely to be in some way a deficient
interpretation. This point also indicates that a flawed vision, (i.e., one that is
impaired by attachments and imperfections) will be incapable of recognizing or
understanding authentic Revelation.
Examples of Bah�'u'll�h's Interpretations
Consideration of some actual instances where Bah�'u'll�h comments on different
interpretations as well as provides His own will help demonstrate this theological
principle. For example, in certain cases Bah�'u'll�h denounces Christian and
Muslim ecclesiastical insistence on the literal interpretation of many prophetic
statements that He asserts are to be understood in a symbolic sense.[7] Generally,
it appears that such literal interpretations are rejected because in most
instances they are bound up with an orientation to the world and its limitations
and not to the transcendent nature of God.
Usually the error of literalism appears to involve confusing the symbol in some
way for the spiritual reality that it represents.[8] Thus, the sky above us
becomes heaven, and the Kingdom of God becomes exclusively a material place and
not the reign of God in the hearts of the believers. This confusion and
inclination toward literalism is sometimes the outcome of a general unawareness of
the nature of God[9] and in other cases it is enticed in the mind of the
interpreter by the interpreter's own material desires and vanity.[10] For example,
the interpreter may imagine that God's promised Kingdom is to be limited to a
material kingdom while unaware that such an interpretation places unbefitting
limits on God's sovereignty, or out of material desire believe that a material
kingdom is the only true type of kingdom worthy of the promise of Scripture.
Equally, out of vanity, the interpreter may believe the prophecies concerning the
day of judgement mean that all the people God will judge to be in error are none
other than the people who differ from his or her own school of thought, race, or
nation. It seems that the more attached the interpreter is to his or her own self
or the material world the more likely the interpreter is to fall into these
errors. Since literalism is so prone to yielding a materialistic meaning there may
be a correlation between a prevalence of the approach at times when a culture
itself becomes especially materialistic.
Since Scripture uses symbols to convey truths that reflect the transcendent
reality of God, it follows that Scriptural symbols have meanings not bound by any
particular limited contexts. This depth of meaning can be seen in the many ways
Bah�'u'll�h will apply the basic spiritual meaning of one symbolic interpretation
to different circumstances. For example, Bah�'u'll�h indicates that the words of
many of Jesus' prophecies are applicable to both Muhammad and Bah�'u'll�h,
presumably because He regards Muhammad and Himself as signifying the same divine
Reality. This is demonstrated in His application of a particular passage from
Jesus' Olivet discourse (i.e., Matt. 24). In one instance He applies the passage
to Muhammad and then in another He applies the same passage to Himself.[11] In the
Kit�b-i-Iq�n He directly explains that some passages contain a message that is
applicable to more than one circumstance, which makes its meaning archetypal in
nature. This is demonstrated in His explanation of Jesus' prophecies concerning
the tribulation or oppression when He says, "This 'oppression' is the essential
feature of every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not
be made manifest."[12] This means that this prophecy about oppression (i.e.,
spiritual oppression, ibid. 31) is applicable to, and fulfilled in, every age.
Nevertheless, despite Bah�'u'll�h's emphasis on symbolic interpretation and His
rejection of certain literal interpretations, He does not appear to be asserting
that all prophecies should always be interpreted symbolically. This point is
established by the fact that Bah�'u'll�h Himself interprets many prophecies
literally. For example, He teaches that certain prophecies have been literally
fulfilled in the ministries of Muhammad,[13] the B�b,[14] and Himself.[15] This
seems to indicate that prophetic statements do not inherently form a category of
Scripture that preclude or solely necessitate either a literal or symbolic
interpretation.
Moreover, His own use of literalism indicates that it can be used in a way that is
God-centred. This is demonstrated in a number of instances where Bah�'u'll�h
interprets prophecies literally for the purpose of guiding people to the truth of
His own ministry. For example, He interprets David's reference to the "strong
city" (Psalm 60:9) to be a reference to the fortress city of 'Akk� where He was
imprisoned.[16] It is possible that owing to the limited understanding of His
audience that, in this instance, He chooses to provide a seemingly literal
interpretation even though the words of the prophecies can convey an understanding
broader in spiritual meaning and equally applicable to His ministry.[17]
Bah�'u'll�h's acceptance and rejection of literal interpretation is not restricted
to the category of prophecy but can also be seen in His interpretation of other
categories of sacred texts. For example, in some instances He interprets biblical
narratives from the Bible in both a literal and a symbolic manner, such as the
star of Bethlehem.[18] In the case of the star of Bethlehem, He has applied a
literal approach to a portion of the narrative that contains what are most likely
to be purely symbolic or mythological elements and a literal reading of the texts
is implausible in a strict material and historical sense.
Even less within the realm of historical possibility is His seemingly literal
exegesis of the "deluge" (Noah's flood), which is used to explain the
disappearance of ancient documents.[19] If we understand His use of the term
"deluge" to be ultimately based not on the literal symbol, but on what it
signifies - i.e., the divinely ordained consequences of turning away from God -
Bah�'u'll�h's exegesis is entirely reasonable. Seen in this way, His reference to
the flood is also consistent with the other numerous instances where ancient
symbolic terms appear in Bah�'u'll�h's Writings.
In most cases terms, such as Satan, Heaven, Hell and so on, are used without any
explanation of what they may symbolize.[20] In some cases His use of such
traditional symbols has at least the appearance of being literal, while in other
Writings He gives fuller explanations indicating or suggesting their actual
symbolic meaning.[21]
In this way He has revealed different verses in the sacred texts, each of which
conveys a meaning appropriate for the varying perspectives and levels of human
under-standing. His purpose appears to be to guide people to spiritual truth in a
way that they will be most receptive to, or that is within their ability to
appreciate or respond to. This may be why He expounds on the sacred texts in a way
that is or can appear literal, making such forms of literalism one of the
legitimate ways of conveying meaning or truth from the Scriptures.
As already noted, Bah�'u'll�h indicates that the words and verses of many
prophecies can contain multiple meanings.[22] This is also true with regard to
sacred narratives. In some particular instances it is clear that the multiple
meanings are derived from the archetypal nature of certain historical narratives.
In this context "archetype" is used to mean a symbol or Scriptural motif that
signifies a recurrent spiritual condition or event, that is, it can be understood
as representing some truth or occurrence that repeats itself or has some eternal
meaning.[23]
An example of an archetypal interpret-ation of Scriptural narrative, similar to
the approach that can be observed in the writings of St Paul[24] is apparent in
how He equates Himself with such persons as Joseph[25] and Jesus Christ.[26] This
approach is fundamental to how He explains the concept of "return."[27] Other
archetypes can be seen in many instances where He removes a term from a
geographical context and puts it in a spiritual context, such as in the phrases
"the P�r�n of the love of God" (ibid. 11) or "the Bush of love, burning in the
Sinai of the heart" (ibid. 61). In this way Bah�'u'll�h seems to be transforming
Scriptural narrative, by bringing it out of the realm of past history and placing
it in the true domain of sacred history where its meaning is eternally applicable
and ever-present in the life of the believer. The meaning is, like the eternal
realm of God, exalted above the limitations of time and place. His interpretations
generally present a message from Scripture that is always relevant for every
seeker and applicable to some degree in every age.[28]
In fact, Bah�'u'll�h's entire recounting of sacred histories, such as the
ministries of Noah, Moses, Christ,[29] does not appear to be solely an attempt to
put forth objective evidence, but rather to demonstrate very general archetypal
patterns in humankind's response to God. In retelling these stories, Bah�'u'll�h
does not appear to place importance upon separating mythological or symbolic
elements from actual historical events,[30] but rather continues the process of
transforming historical narratives into living symbols as a way of conveying
spiritual insight and awakening the religious experience of the seeker.
Nevertheless, Bah�'u'll�h's acceptance of the symbolic interpretive approach does
not preclude its rejection in certain cases.[31] This indicates that seeing
Scripture in a symbolic way will not inevitably lead the interpreter to the truth.
An interesting example can be seen in the following excerpt:
... in the traditions the terms "sun" and "moon" have been applied to prayer and
fasting, even as it is said: "Fasting is illumination, prayer is light." One day,
a well-known divine came to visit Us. While We were conversing with him, he
referred to the above-quoted tradition. He said: "Inasmuch as fasting causeth the
heat of the body to increase, it hath therefore been likened unto the light of the
sun; and as the prayer of the night-season refresheth man, it hath been compared
unto the radiance of the moon." Thereupon We realized that that poor man had not
been favoured with a single drop of the ocean of true understanding, and had
strayed far from the burning Bush of divine wisdom. We then politely observed to
him saying: "The interpretation your honour hath given to this tradition is the
one current amongst the people. Could it not be interpreted differently?" He asked
Us: "What could it be?" We made reply: "Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets, and
the most distinguished of God's chosen Ones, hath likened the Dispensation of the
Qur'�n unto heaven, by reason of its loftiness, its paramount influence, its
majesty, and the fact that it comprehendeth all religions. And as the sun and moon
constitute the brightest and most prominent luminaries in the heavens, similarly
in the heaven of the religion of God two shining orbs have been ordained - fasting
and prayer. 'Islam is heaven; fasting is its sun, prayer, its moon.' " (Kit�b-i-
Iq�n 39-40)
In this instance Bah�'u'll�h rejects the religious leaders interpretation even
though he has interpreted light as a symbol. The error appears to stem from the
fact that material light is seen as a symbol for another material phenomena, in
this case, the material heat of the body, supposedly arising from the act of
fasting. The interpretation never goes beyond the material limitations of this
world nor does it offer any significant spiritual guidance for the soul.
This example concerning fasting is only one of many instances where a theological
vision seems to be a touchstone for an interpretation that extends beyond the
attempt to understand eschatological passages and sacred narrative. It shows an
application affecting the broader scope of Scripture. Another example can be seen
in Bah�'u'll�h's commentary on verse 4:45 of the Qur'�n. The Muslims rejected the
Gospel because it seemed to them to contain an insufficient amount of references
to Muhammad. According to Bah�'u'll�h, this was a mistaken impression. In reality,
the Muslims had failed to understand the eschatological language of Christ. This
failure to understand the prophetic verses of the New Testament then led them to
interpret incorrectly non-prophetic verses in the Qur'�n. They came to believe
that Muhammad's accusation that the Christians and Jews had corrupted the Bible
(e.g., Qur'�n 4:45) meant they had altered the actual words in the physical texts
of the Bible,[32] especially any references that might have referred to Muhammad.
This interpre-tation implied that Jews and Christians could not see the truth of
Muhammad because some Jewish and Christian leaders had removed the necessary
guidance.
Bah�'u'll�h rejects this interpretation of Muhammad's statements about corruption
of the texts on the basis of a number of arguments both objective and theological.
[33] But His strongest denunciations of this traditional interpretation of the
Qur'�n appear to be theological in nature. He first argues that such an
interpretation is entirely false in that the inspiration of the actual texts is
clearly evident in how the Bible reveals God.[34] He then further expands His
theological argument by adding that it is against God's loving providence to allow
the primary source of guidance God has provided to disappear before the appearance
of Muhammad.[35] Here again, beyond the domain of prophecy, Bah�'u'll�h's
statements suggests that the merits of any given interpretations can be evaluated
theologically according to whether or not it adequately reflects the nature of
God; that is God's love, grace, compassion, and so on.
The laws of Bah�'u'll�h are the only category that fall within a single
interpretive approach; that being literal. However, even here one person's literal
interpretation may differ from another person. Thus to some extent, the
theological principle also must apply to the interpretation of revealed Law. This
can be seen in 'Abdu'l-Bah�'s interpre-tation of the Kit�b-i-Aqdas wherein
Bah�'u'll�h appears to permit bigamy. Pointing out that bigamy is conditioned on
justice, and as justice in such a marriage arrangement is impossible, 'Abdu'l-Bah�
states that bigamy is therefore not permissible.[36]
In the absence of theology (in this particular case, the ruling principle of God's
justice) 'Abdu'l-Bah�'s interpretation might seem unwarranted and outside
Bah�'u'll�h's original intention. However, in light of how this same theological
approach seems to be contained in Bah�'u'll�h's own interpretations it is
completely consistent and even plausible to argue that it was entirely within the
original intention of the sacred texts. In fact, it may be arguable that any other
interpretation would be neither consistent nor probable.
These exegetical examples suggest that there is no simple way to correspond a
literal or symbolic approach by delineating distinct provinces of Scripture, such
as history, prophecy and so on. Each method of interpretation can potentially be
used correctly or incorrectly. Hence, there is no single method of interpretation
that will in itself always uncover the truth of the sacred texts. No method can be
exclusively applied by fallible human beings to all the Scriptures or even a
single category of Scripture without some risks of error. The soundness of every
interpretation rest on its theology - that is, how much it reflects an
understanding of the attributes of God such as grace, love, wealth, power, glory,
justice, and sovereignty - and that an absolutely infallible understanding of
theology is outside the human reach.
Historicity and Interpretation
Once interpretations of Bah�'u'll�h, such as the ones above are viewed
collectively rather than in isolation it becomes apparent that neither Scriptural
narrative nor eschatology are interpreted by Him in a way that strictly confines
it within chronological limits. In fact, His approach suggests that the very
belief that the Word of God is eternal suggests that it must have an archetypal
nature that is always applicable to each age and/or the experience of the
individual seeker. This seems to indicate that the spiritual meaning and value of
revealed texts is never bound by the dimensions of any one time or place and hence
its truth can never be adequately evaluated or understood by historical criteria
or material sciences. Such limited criteria are so remote from the realm of God
that they probably should not to be emphasized as standards for evaluating or
interpreting holy texts. In a religious sense, it is perhaps more valid to measure
the truth of an interpretation by its ability to lead the seeker into the
knowledge and presence of God, Who is regarded as the Source of all Truth.
From a historical and literary point of view, it appears that Scripture, Biblical,
Qur'�nic, and Bah�'�, contains a variety of stories, myths and ideas derived from
a number of sources[37] that are of doubtful historical truth and authenticity in
the objective sense. From a theological point of view, however, it seems
reasonable to argue that the modern emphasis on the literary and historical
analysis and interpretation of sacred Scripture has not always given appropriate
consideration to the true nature of Scripture and its real means of composition.
The stories Bah�'u'll�h refers to, such as Noah and the flood, while not real in
the objective historical sense, refer to what is real in the spiritual sense, and
this spiritual reality is the most appropriate measure of its truth.
Bah�'u'll�h appears to anticipate the critics of our secular age with this
warning: "Weigh not the Book of God with the standards and sciences as are current
amongst you . . . the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own
standard" (Synopsis 22).[38] The divine inspiration of a story or any written or
oral tradition pertains to the spiritual meaning and purpose that is "breathed"
[39]into what, in many instances, were originally fragments of collected
information. Because the substance of such stories is spiritual their "truth" and
spiritual "authenticity" can only be evaluated and correctly ascertained by
spiritual criteria. This provides a type of definition of what real truth is in a
religious context. And, in this context it is separate and independent of
objective historicity.
While some Scripture is judged by scholars to be historically accurate, historical
verification of Scripture is generally beyond the direct reach of the individual
seeker, and therefore from a religious point of view it seems inconceivable that
it could ever be regarded as a necessary criteria of faith. Moreover, because past
material events are outside the realm of personal verification they cannot be
substantiated with complete certitude. The spiritual truth of Scripture however,
can always be verified with certitude in the religious experience of the seeker.

End Notes
1. It is perhaps safe to say that 'Law' as a category has always fallen most
clearly and appropriately within the scope of literal interpretation. This will be
addressed later in this same paper.
2. By theology is simply meant the understanding of God's nature, either intuitive
or conscious, as revealed in creation (Rom. 1:20, Kit�b-i-Iq�n 100-1) or by the
Manifestations of God. The word "theology", from the Greek "theos", meaning god,
conjoined with "ology", indicates the study of, or science concerned with
understanding God. The purpose of this paper is not to establish a sole method of
correct interpretation but rather to acknowledge how theology effects the process
of interpretation. A "clear distinction" is made in the Bah�'� Faith "between
authoritative interpretation and the interpretation or understanding that each
individual arrives at for himself from his study of its teachings. While the
former is confined to the Guardian, the latter, according to the guidance given to
us by the Guardian himself, should by no means be suppressed. In fact such
individual interpretation is considered the fruit of man's rational power and
conducive to a better understanding of the teachings, provided that no disputes or
arguments arise among the friends and the individual himself understands and makes
it clear that his views are merely his own" (The Universal House of Justice,
Wellspring of Guidance: Messages from The Universal House of Justice, 1963-1968,
p. 88.). The distinction between individual and authoritative interpretation
allows for the development of the individual's potential to know and worship God
according to his or her own capacity while the other provides guidance for the
broader contexts of the community and ensures that conflicting individual
interpretations do not enter into a competition that is destructive to the welfare
of society.
3. See e.g., Kit�b-i-Iq�n 16, 196. In another passage He says, "behold My
Revelation through Mine eyes" (Tablets of Bah�'u'll�h 242, cf. Gleanings 90-91).
4. Bah�'u'll�h writes, "I testify that Thou hast been sanctified above all
attributes and holy above all names" (Prayers and Meditations 320). In another
passage He writes, "Far, far from Thy glory be what mortal man can affirm of Thee,
or attribute unto Thee, or the praise with which he can glorify Thee!" (Gleanings
4). Inasmuch as the Manifestations of God are reflections of the Godhead, they too
"have been at all times, and will through eternity continue to be, exalted above
every praising name, and sanctified from every descriptive attribute. The
quintessence of every name can hope for no access unto their court of holiness,
and the highest and purest of all attributes can never approach their kingdom of
glory. Immeasurably high are the Prophets of God exalted above the comprehension
of men, who can never know them except by their own Selves. Far be it from His
glory that His chosen Ones should be magnified by any other than their own
persons. Glorified are they above the praise of men; exalted are they above human
understanding!" (Kit�b-i-Iq�n 34-35)
5. ". . . out of the essence of His favour and bounty He hath entrusted every
created thing with a sign of His knowledge, so that none of His creatures may be
deprived of its share in expressing, each according to its capacity and rank, this
knowledge. This sign is the mirror of His beauty in the world of creation. The
greater the effort exerted for the refinement of this sublime and noble mirror,
the more faithfully will it be made to reflect the glory of the names and
attributes of God, and reveal the wonders of His signs and knowledge." (Gleanings
262)
6. That is, persons such as Moses, Christ, Muhammad, and Bah�'u'll�h.
7. See, e.g., Kit�b-i-Iq�n 26, 32, 81, 82, 220, 255-6.
8. See, e.g., Bah�'u'll�h's comments regarding the interpretation of Isaiah 65:25,
Kit�b-i-Iq�n 112-13, and the verse, "Our host shall conquer", Qur'�n 37:173,
Kit�b-i-Iq�n 125ff.
9. Kit�b-i-Iq�n 16, 105, 115, 172.
10. Ibid. 13-4, 29-31, 122.
11. Cf. ibid. 28ff, and Tablets of Bah�'u'll�h 11. Bah�'u'll�h explains the
Messengers of God speak a "twofold language" (ibid. 254-55). The Scriptures use
language in a way that has "unconcealed" and "concealed" meanings. Most of the
prophecies of Jesus fall in a category of Scripture that has "concealed" meanings.
That is, underlying the material reality that is being used as a symbol is some
concealed spiritual message that the symbol is alluding to. For example, in one
instance Bah�'u'll�h explains that Jesus uses physical stars to symbolize
religious leaders (ibid. 41). He points out that the religious leaders who
rejected the Messengers of God failed to correctly grasp the existence of this
"twofold language" or the purpose for which it exist.
12. Kit�b-i-Iq�n 31.
13. Ibid. 65
14. See, e.g., ibid. 49, 254-5.
15. E.g., Epistle 144
16. See Epistle 144-6. Bah�'u'll�h's references to Isaiah's prophecy about the
Mountain of God, and in particular, Isaiah's prophecies concerning Carmel and
Sharon, which He says 'stand in need of no commentary', also appear to be left
open for literal interpretation. It is literally true that, as Isaiah prophesied
(Isaiah 35:1), Carmel (i.e., Mount Carmel) and Sharon (i.e., the plain south of
Carmel) saw the glory of God (lit., Bah�'u'll�h). However, the meaning of the
Hebrew words 'Carmel' (lit: fruitful place, vineyard) and 'Sharon' (lit: level
place) suggests that actual fulfilment of the prophecies could have taken place
through every Revelation of God in every age and continues to take place in the
heart of every believer. However true the literal interpretation of Isaiah's
prophecy may be, it seems to also have an inner meaning that is not limited to one
geographical location. It can be seen as having a meaning that eternally takes
place in the relationship between the individual believer and God.
17. For example, David's reference to the Strong City, could equally be understood
as the City of God that Bah�'u'll�h refers to in the Kit�b-i-Iq�n (Kit�b-i-Iq�n
199), thus giving it a meaning that goes beyond any limited geographical contexts.
Similarly 'Akk� can be equated with the biblical Achor of Hosea's prophecy (God
Passes By 184) owing to Achor's original meaning, i.e., Valley of Achor literally
means Valley of trouble. Thus, 'Akk� can be the "door of hope" (Hos. 2:15) without
any strict geographical parallelism because the place, 'Akk� has a parallel
significance to Achor in that it is the place where humankind "troubled" (see
contexts, Jos. 7) God, and consequently 'Akk� can be viewed as the door of hope
for the redemption of humankind through Bah�'u'll�h. Equally so, 'Akk� can be
viewed metaphorically as the prison within ourselves, wherein every individual has
imprisoned Bah�'u'll�h when he or she turns away from God's glory. Bah�'u'll�h
suggests this equation Himself when He says, "My body hath endured imprisonment
that ye may be released from the bondage of self" (Tablets of Bah�'u'll�h 12).
18. Kit�b-i-Iq�n 62-4.
19. Gleanings 174. In a letter written on behalf of the Guardian, it is stated,
"The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical" (Lights of Guidance 374).
20. See, e.g., Satan: Epistle 66, Kit�b-i-Iq�n 123, 257, rewards of Heaven:
Tablets of Bah�'u'll�h 189, Hell: Epistle 117.
21. See, e.g., Satan: Kit�b-i-Iq�n 112, Heaven and Hell: Epistle 132, Kit�b-i-Iq�n
117.
22. Apart from numerous instances of multiple . . . .
[Remaining text and last 16 footnotes will be inserted when recovered] �
23. �
24. �
25. �
26. �
27. �
28. �
29. �
30. �
31. �
32. �
33. �
34. �
35. �
36. �
37. �
38. ��