From the point of view of developing biblical studies as they relate to the Bahá'í Faith, the existence or nonexistence of such different terminology is surely a significant issue and one that can be discussed and possibly resolved at an early stage in the development of Bahá'í studies relating to Christianity. As it happens, many of the differences of terminology mentioned in the article, either do not exist at all, or do not exist in any substantive form. With this information at hand it is possible to build on Dr. Stockman's learned contributions.
The differences of terminology asserted by Dr. Stockman in this commentary can be enumerated briefly as follows: St. Paul stresses salvation through faith in Christ, but Bahá'u'lláh does not use the word 'salvation' (p. 38); in distinction from Christianity, the Bahá'í Faith uses different descriptives for Jesus, such as 'Manifestation of God' and 'Spirit of God' (p. 33); Bahá'í scriptures do not use the title 'Saviour' for Jesus, Bahá'u'lláh, or any other Manifestation of God (p. 39); and the Bahá'í writings say nothing about the title 'Son of God' or "only begotten Son of God" [John 3:16] (p. 37). An examination of these points might seem unimportant, especially to those who are not involved in biblical studies, but to a Christian, the omission, for example, of any reference by Bahá'u'lláh to salvation might seem quite strange and unsatisfactory.
Starting with 'salvation', it should be recognised that this term actually
appears more frequently in Bahá'í scripture than in the whole of the New
Testament. Its use belongs mostly to New Testament Apostolic preaching.
The Gospel (Luke and John) only attribute the word to Jesus twice. Even
in the small body of English translations of Bahá'u'lláh's writings alone the
term 'salvation' appears more times than in all four Gospels and almost as
many times as in the Pauline epistles.(1) The same is true with other familiar
biblical terms, such as 'grace', 'heaven', 'hell', 'Satan', 'forgiveness', 'sins', and
so on. Most cosmological and theophanic symbols in Bahá'í scripture also
have biblical antecedents. The term salvation may be infrequent in Bahá'í
scripture, but it is equally infrequent in the New Testament. Its importance
is derived not, however, from its quantitative use, but rather from it
theological significance which is shared by both Faiths.
Even though Christianity is primarily concerned with the salvation of the individual and the Bahá'í Faith is primarily concerned with the world's collective salvation, the term 'salvation' is used by both religions for individuals and the larger community of humankind. Concerning the salvation of humankind in Apostolic teaching, see, for example, St. Paul's and Barnabas' use of Isaiah 49:6 (Acts 13:47). For individual salvation in Bahá'í scripture, it should be noted that Bahá'u'lláh confronts us with the concept of salvation with the same personal urgency apparent in the Gospel. In one verse, He writes:
Here Bahá'u'lláh, like Christ, directly links His own sacrifice with the salvation of the world, and indeed, on a personal level. Moreover, aspects of Pauline teaching find a parallel in the Báb's words that, "deeds are secondary to faith" (The Báb, Selections 133) and Bahá'u'lláh's statement that "man's actions are acceptable after his having recognized [the Manifestation]" otherwise "his work shall God bring to naught" (Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle 61). These are, of course, complex issues which should be examined more fully.
Similarly, the Bahá'í writings use the term 'Saviour' with close enough approximations to the Gospel, that it goes without saying that all Manifestations are 'Saviours'. Shoghi Effendi calls Bahá'u'lláh "Saviour of the whole human-race" (Shoghi Effendi, Promised Day 114). In one of 'Abdu'l-Bahá's talks, it is recorded that He distinguishes the station of Christ from Napoleon Bonaparte, saying one is a destroyer, whereas Christ was "a Saviour" ('Abdu'l-Bahá, Promulgation 211), a usage which suggests that the title is equally applicable to other Manifestations. 'Abdu'l-Bahá also refers to Muhammad as the "Ark of Salvation" ('Abdu'l-Bahá, Secret of Divine Civilization 53).
The title 'Saviour'(3) (sótér) was applied to Christ on the basis of Israelite terminology and prophetic expectation (e.g., Luke 2:10). The Jews themselves understood Prophets (and Messiahs) to be 'Saviours' (for general Hebrew use of the term, see 2 Kings 13:5, Isa. 19:20, Obad. 21). It is used in the Book of Isaiah to refer to God, and sometimes in the New Testament to affirm Jesus' divinity,(4) and as such, the terminology is equally applicable to Muhammad, Bahá'u'lláh and other Manifestations of God. Since the biblical terms for 'Saviour' simply mean one who 'saves', 'frees', 'preserves', 'liberates' and so on, even if the title had not been used in Bahá'í scripture, from the teachings of the Kitáb-i-Íqán and from the theological significance of the term, we can understand that it is applicable to all Manifestations.
The observation that the Bahá'í Faith uses different descriptives for Jesus, such as 'Manifestation of God' and 'Spirit of God' is not without foundation, but it is worth noting that whereas Bahá'ís and Christians may choose to emphasise different terms in their own speech or writings, biblical and Bahá'í scripture often share important similarities. Bahá'ís, for example, use the terminology 'Manifestation of God', but similarly, this terminology is not entirely uncommon to Christian theological writings and can be easily established from biblical texts, especially with reference to the revelation of God's glory, be it in the theophany of Mount Sinai (which Christ equates with Himself), Ezekiel's vision, or the Person of Jesus Christ: "I [Jesus] have manifested Thy Name" (John 17:6), "God was manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:14); "He [Jesus] indeed... was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Pet. 1:20), "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God sent His only begotten Son into the world" (1 John 4:9). In the New Testament, Jesus is thus a Manifestation of God's love, name, glory, etc., or simply, a Manifestation of God, a terminological use which can be understood as conveying the same meaning as 'Manifestation of God' conveys in Bahá'í scripture (see also: Isa. 65:1/Rom. 10:20).(5) This is not to deny distinctive Christian beliefs about 'incarnation', but rather to suggest that biblical and Bahá'í scripture often reflect similar terminologies.
The term 'Spirit of God' is also applicable to Christ in the Christian context. Far from originating with the Bahá'í Faith or being a distinctively 'Bahá'í' term for Jesus, 'Spirit of God' (Rúh'u'lláh) is a title for Jesus of disputed origins, but which can be traced back to and linked with certain biblical verses and Islamic traditions. Its ultimate origins are probably the annunciation described in the Gospel and later in the Qur'án (see, for example, Geoffrey Parrinder, Jesus in the Qur'an 48-51), as well as in certain passages in St. Paul's writings, such as where Christ appears to be the focus of Paul's words when he speaks of being led by 'the Spirit of God' (Rom. 8:14, see also Rom. 8:9-10). Although many Christians may prefer 'incarnation' to 'Manifestation' when speaking about Christ, Bahá'í texts also use the term 'incarnation' to refer to Bahá'u'lláh (see Shoghi Effendi, God Passes By 94, see also World Order 112). There are shifts in emphasis and differences of interpretation, but there are also important commonalities in the terminology which deserve more study.
There are other similarities between the christological terminology in the Gospel and the Bahá'í Faith. Bahá'u'lláh, for example, does call Jesus "the Son of God" (see Shoghi Effendi, World Order 105) and 'Abdu'l-Bahá applies the title to Jesus, so as to affirm its authenticity and validity - that is, that Jesus Himself used it,
This statement says much about the significance of the title and comes so close to the christological portrait of John's Gospel, that it can be understood as an affirmation in substance of John 3:16. This statement, along with the general predominant emphasis the Gospel of John receives in Bahá'í scripture, suggest that the frequent use of the title 'Son' in Bahá'í scripture can be viewed in the same context. 'Abdu'l-Bahá's use of "God's Son" in relation to the qualifier "only" and the phrase "inmost being", suggests John's phrase "only begotten Son". Beyond this affirmation, 'Abdu'l-Bahá challenges not its applicability, but what Christians have construed from it (see 'Abdu'l-Bahá, Some Answered Questions, chaps. 17-18).
With regard to 'only begotten', this too appears in Bahá'u'lláh's writings. On one occasion, Bahá'u'lláh refers to God as "begetter of the Spirit (Jesus)" (Bahá'u'lláh, Prayers and Meditations 68). Less directly, Bahá'u'lláh points out that the Manifestations are the "only" (Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings 67) means "born" (ibid. 66) of God whereby humankind can be redeemed. Both the terminology and the concept, therefore, seem to be present in Bahá'í scripture.
Dr. Stockman notes that the Bahá'í writings apply the term 'Lord' to Jesus Christ, and explains this in the context of English language usage with the observation that it is applicable to "kings, nobility, masters, and others". This wide range of significances exists in the New Testament, but it would be misleading to assume this is the sense intended with regard to Jesus Christ. When applied to Christ, Lord (Greek: Kurios, to have power/authority/sovereignty) has a clear divine sense. This divine sovereignty is explained at length in the Kitáb-i-Íqán and with specific reference to Jesus Christ (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 132-4). Moreover, when Bahá'u'lláh applies the term 'Lord' to Christ it is used in a strictly divine sense: not 'Lord' as in a temporal king or noble, but 'Lord of all being' (Bahá'u'lláh, Epistle 100, emphasis added). For many Christians this is a particularly important point - and it is worth keeping in mind St. Paul's words "no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (I Cor. 12:3).
Another issue which perhaps deserved further consideration is the broader applicability of the terms. Dr. Stockman writes,
The impression that such titles should be understood as 'unique' and in the context of the station of distinction raises a number of questions. This becomes more apparent when he adds,
Treating titles as names, in the modern sense, could cause us to loose sight of what the titles actually mean. Bahá'u'lláh indicates that Muhammad was "the Son of Man" foretold in the New Testament (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 25ff), a prophecy He later indicates is applicable to Himself (Bahá'u'lláh, Tablets 115-16). Similarly, Bahá'u'lláh indicates that all the Manifestations can be regarded as the Seal of the Prophets (Bahá'u'lláh, Kitáb-i-Íqán 179). There is also a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which may be applicable to this issue. He states,
One reason for applying such titles to other Manifestations - at least in the context of our own theological understanding - is because Bahá'u'lláh wishes people to see the universality and divinity of all the Manifestations so that the followers of different religions will cease to contend among themselves. The whole discussion about the applicability of the titles of the Manifestations is an important and sensitive one which effects the process of self-definition within a religious community and how they view other religions around them. It is an issue from which we can, no doubt, learn some lessons by examining the course of Christian history.
The purpose here is not to devalue or distract from the merits of the paper, but to build on it the interest of Bahá'í/Christian studies. Many readers turn to scholarly publications seeking information about such issues as the relationship between the Bahá'í Faith and Christianity, but are not themselves directly involved in related research. For this reason it seems appropriate to scrutinise ideas and assertions that appear in print. At present there is little Bahá'í literature that attempts to examine in a scholarly way the relationship between the Bahá'í and biblical scripture. Most literature has been apologetic in nature and in a few cases ideas which were never investigated closely have been accepted and perpetuated from one generation of Bahá'í apologists to the next. What is needed is more in-depth study and the development of critical scholarly literature. Then Bahá'í apologists, trying to share and defend the Faith, would have better materials to draw upon.
There are already many popular perceptions in the Bahá'í community
about differences between the Bahá'í Faith and Christianity which merit re-examining and more rigorous study. Surely there is a need to develop
biblical studies within the Bahá'í community in the same way Islamic
studies are now being pursued. Hopefully, the above analysis will generate
further discussion and contribute something to the development of biblical
studies within the Association for Bahá'í Studies.