As the change and alteration of conditions are necessities for beings, so laws also are changed and altered in accordance with the changes and alterations of the times. For example, in the time of Moses, His Law was conformed and adapted to the conditions of the time; but in the days of Christ these conditions had changed and altered to such an extent that the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated. Thus it was that Christ broke the Sabbath and forbade divorce. After Christ four disciples, among whom were Peter and Paul, permitted the use of animal food forbidden by the Bible, except the eating of those animals which had been strangled, or which were sacrificed to idols, and of blood.(1) They also forbade fornication. They maintained these four commandments. Afterward, Paul permitted even the eating of strangled animals, those sacrificed to idols, and blood, and only maintained the prohibition of fornication. So in chapter 14, verse 14 of his Epistle to the Romans, Paul writes: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean."
Also in the Epistle of Paul to Titus, chapter 1, verse 15: "Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled."
Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.
The existence of the world may be compared to that of a man, and the Prophets and Messengers of God to skillful doctors.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 93-94)
This is the same 'Abdu'l-Baha who said these things (wait a sec, I do have a point in getting you read all this):
it was not known which was pursuing the right pathway because there was no appointed center to whom Christ referred everyone, no successor whose word was a gateway to the truth. If Christ had revealed a Covenant with some soul, commanding all to cling to his word and interpretation as correct, it would have been evident which belief and statement was valid and true.
Inasmuch as there was no appointed explainer of the Book of Christ, everyone made the claim to authority, saying, "This is the true pathway and others are not." To ward off such dissensions as these and prevent any person from creating a division or sect the Blessed Perfection, Baha'u'llah, appointed a central authoritative Personage, declaring Him to be the expounder of the Book. This implies that the people in general do not understand the meanings of the Book, but this appointed One does understand. Therefore, Baha'u'llah said, "He is the explainer of My Book and the Center of My Testament." In the last verses of the Book instructions are revealed, declaring that, "After Me," you must turn toward a special Personage and "whatsoever He says is correct."
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, Page: 382)
There are none who waver in the East, none who oppose the Covenant of God. There is not a single soul among the Baha'is in Persia who is opposed to the Covenant. They are all steadfast. If any soul wishes to speak in this Cause, they will ask, "Is this a word of your own, or is it by the authority of the Center of the Covenant? If you have the authority of the Center of the Covenant, produce it. Where is the letter from Him? Where is His signature?" If he produces the letter, they will accept it. If he fails to do so, they say, "We cannot accept your words because they emanate from you only and return to you. We have no command from the Blessed Perfection, Baha'u'llah, to obey you. He has revealed a Book in which He has covenanted with us to obey an appointed Center of the Covenant. He has not covenanted with us to obey you. Therefore, the statement you make is rejected. You must furnish proof of your authority and sanction. We are commanded to turn to one Center. We do not obey various centers. The Blessed Perfection has made a Covenant with us, and we are holding to this Covenant and Testament. We do not listen to anything else, for people may arise who speak words of their own, and we are commanded not to pay attention to them."
It was not so in former dispensations. Christ, for instance, did not appoint a center of authority and explanation. He did not say to His followers, "Obey the one whom I have chosen." Upon one occasion He asked His disciples, "Whom say ye that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Christ, wishing to make firm the faith of Peter, said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," meaning that the faith of Peter was the true faith. It was a sanction of Peter's faith. He did not say that all should turn to Peter. He did not say, "He is the branch extended from my ancient root." He did not say, "O God! Bless all who serve Peter. O God! Degrade those who are not obedient to him. Shun him who is a violator of the Covenant. O God! Thou knowest that I love all who are steadfast in the Covenant." This has been revealed, however, in all the Books, Writings and Epistles of Baha'u'llah regarding the appointed Center of the Covenant in this dispensation. Therefore, the Baha'i dispensation is distinguished from all others in this fact, the purpose of Baha'u'llah being that no one could arise to cause differences and disunion. After the departure of Christ various sects and denominations arose, each one claiming to be the true channel of Christianity, but none of them possessed a written authority from Christ; none could produce proof from Him; yet all claimed His sanction and approval. Baha'u'llah has written a Covenant and Testament with His own pen, declaring that the One Whom He has appointed the Center of the Covenant shall be turned to and obeyed by all.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, Pages: 385-386)
The first passage, from SAQ, speaks of commandments from various apostles in the context of Progressive Revelation. Note that the commandments of apostles after the time of Jesus are not differentiated from the commandments of Manifestations at all. Rather, equal authority is given to the commandments of the apostles. On the basis of the second and third passages I wonder whether in the first passage 'Abdu'l-Baha was merely using that history to make His point about Progressive Revelation, not to indicate that the commandments of the apostles have the authority of the Manifestation. I don't know how I could prove this, though. In the first passage 'Abdu'l-Baha speaks of laws in the Mosaic Dispensation, saying "the Mosaic Law was no longer suited and adapted to the needs of mankind; and it was, therefore, abrogated." He follows this up by mentioning laws abrogated by Jesus, and then laws of the Mosaic Dispensation abrogated by four disciples. From reading the second and third passages it is clear that 'Abdu'l-Baha did not believe anyone after the time of Jesus to have authority in making commandments. Basically the problem is this: in the SAQ passage, 'Abdu'l-Baha gives the commandments of the apostles the authority of a Manifestation, whereas in the above passage He said no one had to go along with Peter, one of the disciples He specifically named as abrogating laws in the SAQ passage! From the SAQ passage, one would get the impression that disobeying the commandments of the apostles would be an act of Covenant-breaking, but not so from the other quotes. 'Abdu'l-Baha said that there was "no successor (of Jesus) whose word was a gateway to the truth." The impression from the SAQ passage is that there was more than one person after Jesus whose word was a gateway to the truth. The second and third passages would hardly give authority to the decision at the Apostolic Council, mentioned in Acts 15, which was made by the head honcho's of the church. Evidently Jesus' followers poorly understood Jesus, as they were quite big on claiming authority for themselves over others earlier on. Perhaps not all of them. Let's look at this part again:
There are none who waver in the East, none who oppose the Covenant of God. There is not a single soul among the Baha'is in Persia who is opposed to the Covenant. They are all steadfast. If any soul wishes to speak in this Cause, they will ask, "Is this a word of your own, or is it by the authority of the Center of the Covenant? If you have the authority of the Center of the Covenant, produce it. Where is the letter from Him? Where is His signature?" If he produces the letter, they will accept it. If he fails to do so, they say, "We cannot accept your words because they emanate from you only and return to you. We have no command from the Blessed Perfection, Baha'u'llah, to obey you. He has revealed a Book in which He has covenanted with us to obey an appointed Center of the Covenant. He has not covenanted with us to obey you. Therefore, the statement you make is rejected. You must furnish proof of your authority and sanction. We are commanded to turn to one Center. We do not obey various centers. The Blessed Perfection has made a Covenant with us, and we are holding to this Covenant and Testament. We do not listen to anything else, for people may arise who speak words of their own, and we are commanded not to pay attention to them."
In the time of Jesus there was no appointed successor, but we can apply this to the time of the apostles after Jesus. Surely if church members were to question the authority of the apostles in making authoritative commands by the reasoning above, the apostles' would be defeated. Indeed, He goes on to say:
After the departure of Christ various sects and denominations arose, each one claiming to be the true channel of Christianity, but none of them possessed a written authority from Christ; none could produce proof from Him; yet all claimed His sanction and approval.
Obviously the apostles weren't just meekly expressing their views when they said those things (such as "what I think is..."), but rather they were trying to lay down the law. What 'Abdu'l-Baha says in SAQ would be pointless if what the apostles said wasn't supposed to be what the church was supposed to follow. To me the third passage indicates that the apostles, or at least some of them, were not firm in the Covenant. He refers to those firm in the Covenant-breaking, telling how they ask, "Is this a word of your own, or is it by the authority of the Center of the Covenant?" This can be applied to the apostles, because it was their own words. There was no Center of the Covenant, and they had no authority to supplement what Jesus said. The point 'Abdu'l-Baha is making is that speaking without authority is a sign of weakness in the Covenant. If Jesus didn't appoint a successor or say not to follow commandments from others no one could be regarded as Covenant-breakers for giving their own commands (I think). 'Abdu'l-Baha says that Jesus didn't say that those who disobey Peter are violators of the Covenant, yet my impression from reading Acts is quite different. Peter's commandments are God's commandments. From what 'Abdu'l-Baha said it is clear that it wasn't supposed to be the case that people would refer to others as false believers. In the earliest documents we have, Paul refers to other Christians in this way.
Further in regards to the passage in SAQ, it just seems plain illogical. Why couldn't Jesus have commanded what the four disciples did? Why do they get to abrogate Mosaic law? If they can, why not generations after them? That way laws could keep getting changed by humans, and there would be no need for another Manifestation. Or is there some reason humans could abrogate laws just to the end of the first century? My reading from everything else is that the laws of God are Revealed by the Manifestation in each Dispensation. Then there may be a long period in which time there is no Manifestation, and until the next Manifestation arrives the laws of God cannot be changed. The passage in SAQ appears to suggest otherwise. 'Abdu'l-Baha talks about the change in conditions since the time of Moses, but why did it have to wait for a couple decades after the Manifestation for God to abrogate a few laws, and add the law forbidding fornication? Had conditions changed within a couple decades? Even the passage doesn't suggest this. Worse yet, 'Abdu'l-Baha then says how Paul changed his mind on the food issues, seemingly wanting us to believe that Paul had an 'Abdu'l-Baha-like authority in the church and that his changes were accepted by all, even those who had made laws to the contrary not long before. 'Abdu'l-Baha proves His point by showing the letters of Paul, and then He says:
Now this change, these alterations and this abrogation are due to the impossibility of comparing the time of Christ with that of Moses. The conditions and requirements in the later period were entirely changed and altered. The former laws were, therefore, abrogated.
The existence of the world may be compared to that of a man, and the Prophets and Messengers of God to skillful doctors.
Again, I see problems. He compares the time of Moses with the time of Christ, but had just compared Paul's change of ideas that happened within a few years of the Apostolic Council. Had conditions changed in that time, to the extent that they were "entirely changed and altered"? Why not just send a Manifestation right then if that had to happen? The final part again links the apostles with the Prophets, as if they have the same authority. I just wonder where it is supposed to stop if Paul and others can abrogate laws in the 50's. When, precisely, is the date at which a Christian would not be allowed to abrogate any more laws of God? If people could do it in the 50's, why couldn't Clement or Ignatius do it around the end of the century? Or is this something only disciples can do?
I'm now into my last ten questions. I've almost run out of questions to ask!
Regards,
David
_________________________________________________________________ Gaming galore at http://xtramsn.co.nz/gaming !
---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
