Web - Windows - iPhone
The Research Department has studied the query contained in the email of 8 December 1997 to the Bahá'í World Centre from Mr. .... Mr. ... states that "some years ago" he read a letter in The American Bahá'í which quoted from a statement of the Research Department concerning the Apostle Paul. He recalls that this statement "covered references in the Bahá'í Writings to Paul and noted that there was no support for the view that Paul was a 'false teacher'". Mr. ... is requesting a copy of this statement by the Research Department.
It seems likely to us that the letter which Mr. ... recalls reading is the one published in the "Letters" section of The American Baha'i, 4 November 1992, volume 23, number 16, page 11. We have attached a photocopy of this page for his convenience and note that in the letter to the editor in question, the writer introduces the term "false teacher" in his introductory remarks; it does not appear in any of the material he quotes. It is also important to clarify that the writer is quoting (with some inaccuracy) a reference to the Research Department in a letter dated 25 November 1980 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice.
Regarding Mr. ...'s request, therefore, it seems appropriate to provide him with an extract from the House of Justice's letter cited above which contains the reference to the Research Department and the full text of the discussion of Peter and Paul. For clarity, we have preceded this extract by the incoming query to which this discussion is a response.
Thus:Also I would like to know if there is any statement in the
writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá or the letters of the Guardian that
state that Saint Paul "usurped the station of Peter", and that Saint
Paul completely "changed the basic message of Jesus Christ." This is
the substance of a section of a book recently published by George
Ronald Pub. Co....Concerning the relationship of St. Peter and St. Paul, the
Research Department has found nothing in the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh,
'Abdu'l-Bahá or the Guardian which states that St. Paul "usurped the station
of Peter" or that he "completely changed the basic message of
Christ."...let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that
... the primacy of Peter, the Prince of the apostles, is upheld and
defended....Peter is recognized as one whom God has caused "the mysteries
of wisdom and of utterance to flow out of his mouth."
(The Promised Day is Come ,[2] p. 110)Now with regard to your questions. First concerning the
statement of Jesus Christ "Thou art Peter and upon this rock...": this
saying of Jesus establishes beyond any doubt the primacy of Peter and
also the principle of succession, but is not explicit enough
regarding the nature and functioning of the Church itself. The Catholics
have read too much into that statement, and derived from it certain
conclusions which are quite unjustifiable.(From a letter dated 7 September 1938 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
Bahá'u'lláh Himself has testified that the original Message of Jesus has not been lost. You are undoubtedly familiar with the passage on page 89 of the Kitáb-I-Iqan,[3] where He states:
We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert
that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst
the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously
they have erred! How oblivious of the fact that such a statement
imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and living
Providence! How could God, when once the daystar of the beauty of Jesus had
disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth
heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His
creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to
from the setting of the daystar of Jesus until the rise of the sun of
the Muhammadan Dispensation?It is indisputable, however, that many erroneous teachings have entered into Christianity, obscured the pure Gospel and caused disunity and schism. This is explained by the Guardian on pages 20 and 21 of the compilation entitled The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, where he points out that
...the fundamental reason why the unity of the Church of Christ was irretrievably shattered, and its influence was in the course of time undermined, was that the Edifice which the Fathers of the Church reared after the passing of His First Apostle was an Edifice that rested in no wise upon the explicit directions of Christ Himself.
It is also undeniable that St. Peter had to face many problems in his own lifetime. On page 145 of The World Order of Bahá'u'lláh, the Guardian writes:
Could Peter, the admitted chief of the Apostles, or the Imam
Ali, the cousin and legitimate successor of the Prophet, produce in
support of the primacy with which both had been invested written and
explicit affirmations from Christ and Muhammad that could have silenced
those who either among their contemporaries or in a later age have
repudiated their authority and, by their action, precipitated the schisms
that persist until the present day?That St. Paul on occasion disputed with St. Peter is seen from St. Paul's own words in the Epistle to the Galatians, 2:11-14. It is also St. Paul who mentions early divisions among the Christians, which he endeavours to heal, in I Corinthians 1:11-13. St. Peter's attitude to St. Paul appears in II Peter 3:15-18.
In considering the relationship between St. Peter and St. Paul, one needs to bear in mind all of these various factors. High praise is accorded to them both in the Bahá'í Writings. A particularly pertinent statement by 'Abdu'l-Bahá appears on page 223 of the new publication Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá:[4]
One's conduct must be like the conduct of Paul, and one's faith
similar to that of Peter.(25 February 1980, written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to an individual)
Mr. ... may also find of interest the following extract from a letter written by the Universal House of Justice regarding whether Paul was a "Covenant-breaker":
Your letter ... concerning the question of Saint Paul as an
alleged Covenant-breaker doubtless arises from the comments of those who
seek to compare the evolution of early Christianity with the origins
of the Bahá'í Faith.You are correct in noting such questions from the Writings as
the one cited from the Tablets of 'Abdu'l-Bahá Abbas, which confirm
the high rank of the Apostle Paul in the Christian Dispensation.[5]
Indeed, while there is no doubt that the Bahá'í teachings uphold the
primacy of Peter (see The Promised Day is Come, page 113)[6], we know of
no text stating that Paul was a Covenant-breaker. We have heard of
a pilgrim's note to this effect, but it cannot be given credence
in the absence of any validation.5. "Physical nearness or remoteness is of no importance; the essential fact is the spiritual affinity and ideal nearness. Judas Iscariot was for a long time favored in the holy court of His Holiness Christ, yet he was entirely far and remote; while Paul, the apostle, was in close embrace with His Holiness." (Tablets of 'Abdu'l- Baha Abbas, vol. 3 (New York: Bahá'í Publishing Committee, pp. 719-20.
6. Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1941.It has come to my attention that there are Bahá'ís who believe
that the Apostle Paul was some kind of "false teacher." This
viewpoint is not correct.'Abdu'l-Bahá referred to Paul, saying, "Paul, the Apostle, was
in his early life an enemy of Christ, whilst later he became his
most faithful servant." (Paris Talks, p. 147)The Universal House of Justice, in a letter to a believer dated
February 25, 1980, wrote: "The Research Department has found nothing in
the writings of Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá or the Guardian which
states that St. Paul 'usurped the station of Peter' or that he 'changed
the basic message of Peter' or that he 'changed the basic message of
Christ.'" It is so much easier to teach Christians without having to deny
Paul. In fact, I've found that Paul is my best friend when talking
with Christians. Read his writings the way they really are -- not the
way people have twisted them. Paul wrote: "We speak ... expressing
spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not
accept the things which come from the Spirit of God for they are
foolishness to him and he cannot understand them because they are
spiritually discerned." (I Corinthians 2:14; New International version)
Paul's teachings must be spiritually discerned or spiritually
interpreted. Paul's writings on resurrection are the oldest on this topic in
the New Testament. He explains that when a person dies, his/her
being is like a seed. "It is sown a physical body, it is raised a
spiritual body...." Speaking of Jesus' resurrection, he wrote: "the last
Adam [who was Jesus] became a life-giving spirit...flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 15; Revised Standard
version) As one can see, Paul's teachings agree with the Bahá'í view on
resurrection. When his teachings are "spiritually discerned" you'll find they
agree with the Bahá'í writings. Resurrection, ascension, and return as
taught by Paul and Peter are identical with the teachings of
Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Paul is a Baha'i's friend. It's time to start
treating him as such.