# Interpretation and the Guardianship

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Ian C. Semple, Interpretation and the Guardianship, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Interpretation and the Guardianship
> 
> Ian C. Semple
> published in Lights of Irfán6, pp. 203-216
> 
> Wilmette, IL: Irfan Colloquia, 2005-05
> 
> Below the following PDF, see also a copy of this article in HTML.
> 
> Download: lights6_interpretation.pdf.
> 
> Haifa, Israel, 1984-02-18
> 
> The subject of this session, as you can see from your programs, is
> "Interpretation and the Guardianship". This may seem to be a very
> straightforward matter, but the more I thought about it, the more I became
> aware that the Bahá'í concept of interpretation is very different in many
> ways from that prevalent in earlier Dispensations and that, even within
> the Faith, there are many misconceptions, which can, indeed, give rise to
> tests for the believer.
> 
> Here I would like to digress from the subject for a moment, to make a
> personal comment about the coexistence of divine authority and individual
> freedom of expression - I think it was a pilgrim - once commented to me
> that he thought that if the Guard ian had been sitting in the meeting of
> the Universal House of Justice it would have been impossible for the
> members to say frankly what they thought. I have had the privilege of only
> a few hours in the presence of the Guardian, but I do not agree with that
> point of view. I believe that in his presence one would not have dared to
> do anything but say exactly what one thought. I am also confirmed in this
> view by the actions of the Hands of the Cause of God since the coming into
> being of the House of Justice - the Hands who worked so closely with the
> beloved Guardian. They have always demonstrated absolute loyalty and also
> absolute frankness in all their consultations with the Universal House of
> Justice, and this combination has been a tremendous source of strength
> and inspiration to the House of Justice.
> 
> So I believe that the presence of a source of divine guidance in the
> Faith, while being a guarantee of its unity and preserving the purity of
> its teachings, is no contradiction to the principle of freedom of thought.
> I doubt if it is possible to obtain a totally clear understanding of the
> subject of interpretation, but perhaps we can clarify it to some extent.
> 
> I propose to divide the subject into three main topics: 1. The
> distinction between the interpretation that we all do when discussing any
> subject, and authoritative Interpretation as exercised by the
> Guardian.
> 2. The distinction between authoritarian interpretation,
> and divinely guided legislation
> 3. Aspects of the function of
> Interpreter as exercised by Shoghi Effendi This part of the subject is our
> main concern in this Seminar, and therefore I shall divide it also into a
> number of aspects, although I must emphasize that this is a purely
> arbitrary division, and each type of interpretation shades into the
> others. They are:
> 3.1 Defining the meaning of specific Texts.
> 3.2
> Explaining what is the thought conveyed by the Texts, i.e.
> expounding their meaning.
> 3.3 Development of seminal statements in
> the Sacred Text.
> 3.4 Examples of refusal to comment further on a Text
> or make statements on matters not covered in the Text.
> 3.5 Definition
> of the sphere of authoritative interpretation.
> 3.6 Illumination of the
> overall significance of the Revelation
> 3.7 The power to take a long
> and uninterrupted view over a series of generations
> 
> 1. Aspects of Interpretation
> 
> It is, of course, impossible to understand or speak about any
> statement, whether written or oral, without interpretation. The
> Manifestation of God has the superhuman task of conveying to mankind
> truths that it does not yet understand and training it in modes of
> behavior that it has not yet risen to. To do this He has to use the
> limited languages that are spoken around Him, with all their accumulated
> meanings and connotations. He not only uses words and metaphors and
> similes with consummate skill, but in using old forms and old concepts, He
> transforms them and breathes into them new meaning. So, in trying to
> educate ourselves in the Revelation, we need to study three meanings in
> each text we read: the meaning of the words themselves; the meanings they
> will have had for the particular person or persons that the Manifestation
> was addressing; and also the new meaning or meanings that He will be
> trying to convey. In other words, we must avoid three pitfalls: one is
> that of ignoring the obvious meaning of the words (in the past people
> were sometimes so keen on extracting the esoteric significance of a text
> that they were blind to the clear meaning of the words); the second is
> that of taking the words out of their historical and social contexts; the
> third is that of thinking that the social and historical contexts will, in
> themselves, give us an understanding of the obvious meaning and of what
> the Manifestation is saying.
> 
> A good example to show this is Bahá'u'lláh's Tablet to a Physician.
> Some passages are quite straightforward. To understand others we need to
> remember the caution of the Guardian that this Tablet was addressed to a
> physician of the old school of medicine, and that without an
> understanding of the terminology of that school, we could not understand
> what Bahá'u'lláh was saying. However, it is clear that Bahá'u'lláh was not
> merely recounting to the physician what the physician already knew; He was
> explaining to him, in terminology that he could understand, certain
> truths that he wanted to convey about health and healing.
> 
> The historical and social context is not the only context of a passage.
> There is also the context of the other teachings. In "Gleanings", section
> 127 we find the following words of Bahá'u'lláh:
> 
> "If it be your wish, O people, to know God and to discover the
> greatness of His might, look, then, upon Me with Mine own eyes, and not
> with the eyes of anyone besides Me. Ye will, otherwise, be never capable
> of recognizing Me, though you ponder My Ca use as long as My Kingdom
> endureth, and meditate upon all created things throughout the eternity of
> God, the Sovereign Lord of all, the Omnipotent, the Ever-Abiding, the
> All-Wise."
> 
> This, I think, implies among other things that the most important keys
> to understanding the Writings are the Writings themselves; that we must
> read them not merely from our point of view, trying to see what we can
> understand, but consider them from Bahá'u'lláh's point of view: what is
> He trying to convey? And for what purpose? It is no good taking one text
> and trying to understand it in isolation from all the other teachings
> which might bear upon it. Therefore we must relate every statement to all
> the rest of the Revelation and try to understand what Bahá'u'lláh is
> striving to convey. The consequence of this realization is to accept that,
> since we can never encompass the whole Revelation we must always be
> tentative in our understanding even when it may seem to us to be
> absolutely clear. A striking example of the importance of this occurs in
> the Kitab-i-Aqdas, where we find the verses: "God hath enjoined upon you
> marriage." and "Enter into wedlock, O people, that ye may bring forth one
> who will make mention of Me; this is My commandment unto you, obey it as
> a succour to yourselves." One would think that these are very clear
> statements not susceptible of any interpretation. It seems, on the face of
> it to be unambiguous and binding command. Yet one of the believers asked
> Bahá'u'lláh Himself about this passage, and whether it meant that marriage
> was compulsory. Bahá'u'lláh replied: "This is not compulsory." I instance
> this because it is quite a temptation sometimes for Bahá'ís, during discussion of a subject, to
> assert dogmatically (and sometimes heatedly!): "You
> can't say that! Here are the words of the Text and they are quite clear!"
> 
> Individual interpretation of this kind is not only inescapable. It is
> essential if we are to increase the depth of our understanding and also
> recognize its permanent limitations. I believe the combination of
> encouragement of individual thought with the existence of an infallible
> centre of authoritative interpretation is one of the unique strengths of
> this Dispensation, the effects of which endure even in the absence of the
> Guardian. The very fact that there is in principle in the Cause a centre
> of such guidance, and that all other interpretation is deprived of
> authority, teaches us a humility in our thinking that is one of the
> strongest cements of unity.
> 
> Although individual interpretation has no authority, we should not be
> led to the extreme of concluding that the explanations given by
> individuals can never be inspired. In a Tablet which is published in
> section 203 of "Selections from the Writings of
> `Abdu'l-Bahá" the Master wrote:
> 
> "The Blessed Beauty hath promised this servant that souls would be
> raised up who would be the very embodiments of guidance, the banners of
> the Concourse on high, torches of God's oneness, the stars of His pure
> truth, shining in the heavens where God reigneth alone. They would give
> sight to the blind, and would make the deaf to hear; they would raise the
> dead to life. They would confront all the peoples of the earth, pleading
> their Cause with proofs of the Lord of the seven spheres."
> 
> It would be a mistake, therefore, to assume that the Bahá'í Revelation
> will be deprived of believers who can give us profounder insights into the
> meaning of the Teachings of the Faith. But none of these kinds of
> interpretation, no matter how learned the believer who expresses them, are
> authoritative. Although, they may enlighten us there is always the
> inevitability of some degree of error. Let us never forget the example of
> the Christian Dispensation. The gospels are filled with prophecies and
> warnings given by Jesus About His Second Coming. Christians have laboured
> to understand these for some 2,000 years. Their scholars have worked out
> many interpretations and understandings of what would happen, but I do not
> know of any who came to the correct conclusion, namely, that it signified
> the appearance of another Manifestation of God.
> 
> Authoritative, divinely-guided interpretation is of a wholly different
> order to what we have been considering and is exclusively the function of
> the Master and the Guardian.
> 
> 2. Authoritative Interpretation and Divinely Guided Legislation
> 
> The prerogative of authoritative interpretation conferred by Bahá'u'lláh,
> first upon `Abdu'l-Bahá and, after Him, upon the Guardian, lies in the
> heart of the Covenant.
> 
> In the previous Dispensations no clear distinction was drawn between
> interpretation and legislation. the two functions were subsumed under one
> process of deducing conclusions and guidance for new situations from the
> study of the Holy Word. Because these deductions were believed to be the
> process of making explicit what was implicit in the Text, they were
> virtually unalterable and turned into a massive accumulation of dogma,
> ritual and laws. In Judaism it became primarily a multiplicity of minute regulations governing
> every moment and aspect of a person's life, obedience
> to which was conceived as identical with obedience to the Law of God.
> Christianity, to a large extent, broke free of this, but replaced it with
> the erection of a formidable structure of dogma, belief in which was
> understood to be essential for the eternal salvation of the soul, and
> which led to such abuses as the sale of indulgences, which precipitated
> the rebellion of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
> 
> In this Dispensation we have two separate divinely-guided authorities,
> one to provide authoritative interpretation, the other to provide
> supplementary legislation. The essential distinction between these two
> functions is explained by the Universal House of Justice in its letter
> dated 9 March 1965. On pages 52 to 53 of "Wellsprings of guidance" is the
> following passage:
> 
> "The Guardian reveals what the Scripture means; his interpretation is a
> statement of truth which cannot be varied. Upon the Universal House of
> Justice, in the words of the Guardian, `has been conferred the exclusive
> right of legislating on matters not expressly revealed in the Bahá'í
> Writings.' Its pronouncements, which are susceptible of amendment or
> abrogation by the House of Justice itself, serve to supplement and apply
> the Law of God. Although not invested with the function of interpretation,
> the House of Justice is in a position to do everything necessary to
> establish the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh on this earth."
> 
> One important consequence of this distinction is that when we have a
> question about what we should believe, or what the Text means, and this is
> not answered for us in the Text itself, there is no one, in the absence of
> the Guardian, who can answer it authoritatively and bindingly. If,
> however, we wish to know what we should do in any instance, the Universal
> House of Justice is fully empowered to convey the divine guidance on the
> subject.
> 
> Two other important consequences are the prohibition of the formulation
> of dogma or creeds in the Faith (these are, after all, but man's attempt
> to tie the truths of God up in a parcel and are forever doomed to
> inadequacy), and the recognition of the
> profound difference between the Laws actually given by the Manifestation
> of God, which can be changed only by another Prophet, and those which the
> Universal House of Justice is inspired to make, which are repealable by
> the House of Justice itself. This
> gives an unprecedented degree of elasticity to the Bahá'í system of law.
> 
> There is, of course, a hierarchical relationship between the Guardian's
> interpretation and the legislation of the Universal House of Justice. The
> supreme authority in the Faith is the Word of God and all legislation is
> bound by that authority. The Authoritative Interpreter is the living
> mouthpiece of that Word, the Expounder of its true meaning. He therefore
> naturally has the authority to define the sphere of the legislative action
> of the Universal House of Justice. Shoghi Effendi has stated categorically that neither the
> Guardian nor the Universal House of Justice would
> ever usurp the function of the other. Both, after all, are under the
> protection and unerring guidance of the Bab and Bahá'u'lláh. Therefore we
> can be confident that, even in the absence of the Guardian the Universal
> House of Justice is not going to legislate outside its sphere of
> authority. I suspect, however, that in its care not to step beyond its
> boundaries, the House of Justice may well refrain from legislating in
> areas which, if we had the Guardian with us, he could have told us were
> within its sphere. There are two very interesting examples of what I mean.
> 
> As you know, in both Christianity and the Bahá'í Faith, murder is
> prohibited. The question then arises as to whether abortion and euthanasia
> are permissible or not. The Catholic Church has concluded that the law is
> clear, "Thou shalt not kill", and therefore both are prohibited. In the
> Bahá'í Faith, however, we have statements by the Guardian on both issues.
> In both cases he states that there is nothing explicit about them in the
> Writings - which implies that they are not quite the same thing as murder. The following are
> three statements made on his behalf relating to
> these subjects:
> 
> On 25 August 1939: "The practice of abortion - which is
> absolutely criminal as it involves deliberate destruction of human life -
> is forbidden in the Cause. Regarding `mercy killings'..; this is also a
> matter which the Universal House of Justice will have to legislate upon."
> 
> On 13 November 1940: "Regarding the practice of abortion; as no
> specific reference has been made to the subject in the Writings of
> Bahá'u'lláh, it devolves upon the International House of Justice to
> definitely pronounce upon it. There can be no doubt , however, that this
> practice, involving as it does the destruction of human life, is to be
> strongly deprecated."
> 
> On 20 October 1953: "As there is nothing specific in the Bahá'í
> Writings on the subject of abortion, it will consequently have to be dealt
> with by the Universal House of Justice, when that Body is formed."
> 
> On the basis of these three statements the Universal House of Justice
> has ruled that to have an abortion just for the sake of getting rid of an
> unwanted birth is absolutely forbidden, but that there may be cases in
> which an abortion would be permissible, and this is for the Universal
> House of Justice to legislate on. Pending such legislation the decision is
> left to the consciences of the individuals concerned in the light of the
> above principles and of expert medical advice.
> 
> Another area concerns the obligatory prayers. In the thirteenth
> Glad-Tidings Bahá'u'lláh states: "All matters of State should be referred
> to the House of Justice, but acts of worship must be observed according to
> that which God hath revealed in His Book." On one occasion when one of
> the believers asked the Universal House of Justice to designated a prayer
> which could be said for the House of Justice it referred to this Text and
> refused to make any such designation. One could have assumed, likewise ,
> that this Text would have made it impossible for the House of Justice to
> answer any questions about Obligatory Prayers, but the Guardian has
> written that matters of detail that are obscure in relation to the
> Obligatory Prayers are to be decided by the
> Universal House of Justice, specifying, therefore, just what aspect of
> these matters do lie within its sphere of legislation.
> 
> 3. The Function of Interpretation
> 
> The way in which Shoghi Effendi exercised his function of Interpreter
> is highly illuminating, both in regard to our understanding of what
> Authoritative Interpretation implies and regard to our understanding of
> the infallibility of the Sacred Text, a subject which has been badly
> misunderstood in earlier Dispensations. All these quotations immediately
> following are from letters written by the Guardian's secretaries on his
> behalf.
> 
> 3.1 In some cases Shoghi Effendi simply gave clear simple statements
> about what a particular passage meant, for example:
> 
> - In regards to your question: What the Master meant in the words you
> quoted is simply that joy gives one more freedom to create; if the
> Prophets, the Master Himself, and the Guardian, had less problems and
> worries, They could give forth a great deal
> more creatively to the Cause. When He said that "grow to be as a fruitful
> tree" he meant that, by lifting burdens from our Guardian and trying as
> much as possible to do our share of the work of the Faith, we would help
> Shoghi Effendi to develop his full powers as Guardian and, thru the
> Covenant, the Cause would spread its shadow over all men. This we have
> seen happen in the last 30 years, but that does not mean we must not try
> to our utmost to help him by our lives and our services. (1952.10.5 -Sec)
> 
> - The "rheum" mentioned in the Tablet of the Master is symbolic. He
> means that the people have a spiritual cold and cannot smell the Divine
> Fragrance and that the believers must be the physicians to heal men of
> these conditions. He is not referring to physical ailments. (1950.03.26 -
> Sec)
> 
> - The Master uses this term "the Divine Reality is sanctified from
> singleness" in order to forcibly impress us with the fact that the Godhead
> is unknowable and that to define It is impossible; we cannot contain It in
> such concepts as singleness and plurality which we apply to things we
> know and can experience. He uses the method that we know the sun
> indirectly thru its rays, the Godhead indirectly thru the Manifestations
> of God. (1950.02.20 - Sec)
> 
> - Gl.160 - The human soul is a "harbinger" in the sense that it gives
> us a faint idea of the existence of the other worlds, an inkling of the
> spiritual worlds Beyond. (1938.05.25 - Sec)
> 
> - The "flame of fire" in the Tablet of Ahmad should be taken
> figuratively. In other words, we must not tolerate the evil of Covenant
> breakers or enemies of the Faith, but be uncompromising in our loyalty, in
> our exposure to them and in our defense of
> the Faith. (1955.07.21 - Sec)
> 
> - What Bahá'u'lláh means by the faculty of sight and hearing is the
> physical faculty, not a spiritual abstraction. He means that we have been
> given eyes and ears to appreciate what goes on in this world, by the
> Almighty God; in other words, we can read the Teachings and listen to the
> Message of the Prophet. This is to be taken literally. (1954.04.22 -
> Sec)
> 
> - The expression in "Gleanings" p. 70: "Him who is at the distance of
> two bows" should not be taken literally, but it has an allegorical
> meaning, indicating nearness or close proximity. (1938.04.12 - Sec)
> 
> - Hidden Words, Persian section - The expression "tend my raven locks,
> and not wound My Throat" is an allegorical warning by Bahá'u'lláh against
> the misuse of anything bestowed by Him on the world. (1937.09.06 - Sec)
> 
> In the Kalimat-i-Firdawsiyyih Bahá'u'lláh states: "We have formerly
> ordained that the people should converse in two languages, yet efforts
> must be made to reduce them to one, likewise the scripts of the world,
> that men's lives may not be dissipated and wasted in learning divers
> languages. Thus the whole earth would come to be regarded as one city and
> one land." A believer asked the Guardian how this related to Bahá'u'lláh's
> command that an auxiliary international language should be chosen and
> taught in all the schools in addition to one's mother tongue. The reply
> was:
> 
> - What Bahá'u'lláh is referring to in the Eighth Leaf of the Exalted
> Paradise is a far distant time, when the world is really one country, and
> one language would be a sensible possibility. It does not contradict His
> instructions as to the need immediately for an auxiliary language.
> (1946.03.16 - Sec)
> 
> >From these specific interpretations we learn not only what the
> particular passages mean, but we receive an object lesson in studying the
> Writings. We see some passages are to be taken literally, others
> allegorically. some are even stylistic exaggerations to produce the
> intended effect, and some relate to a different stage in the development
> of the Dispensation than do others.
> 
> 3.2 Sometimes the Guardian would go considerably beyond a brief
> interpretation of the passage in question, such as in this beautiful
> description of the Short Obligatory Prayer:
> 
> - The meaning of the short obligatory prayer mentioned by Mr. Lacey in
> his letter is simply that Bahá'u'lláh has put into one brief sentence the
> very essence of life, which is that we come from one Father, and pass, on
> the road of life, through tests
> and trials and experiences, so that our souls may grow; and that the
> reason for our existence is to learn to know and understand our Creator.
> As we do this, we will increase our love for Him and will worship Him.
> This is really the deepest joy that com es to any soul. All others are
> merely reflections of this happiness, the happiness that comes when we
> worship the God Who made us, our Heavenly Father. (1953.10.05 - Sec)
> 
> 3.3 Sometimes, he would develop an entire concept from just a seminal
> reference in the Writings. There is, for example, his definition of the
> Namus-i-Akbar (the Greater Law) as the constitution of National Spiritual
> Assemblies, and the Namus-i-A'zam (the Most Great Law) as the
> constitution of the Universal House of Justice. the development of the
> institution of the Hands of the Cause of God, with their Auxiliary Boards
> is undoubtedly another example of the same process.
> 
> 3.4 On the other hand, there are many examples of matters on which he
> refused to give an interpretation because there was nothing specific in
> the texts. For example:
> 
> - We have no way of knowing what science Bahá'u'lláh meant when He said
> it would largely eliminate fear; as no further mention of it was ever made
> in the teachings, the Guardian cannot identify anything with this
> statement. To do so would depart from his function as interpreter of the
> teachings; he cannot reveal anything apart from the given teachings.
> (1952.08.30 - Sec)
> 
> - Concerning the points you mention in "The Epistle to the Son of the
> Wolf", page 32: These were never, so far as we know, further elaborated by
> Bahá'u'lláh; they remained hidden within the realms of His infinite
> knowledge, just as did the universal
> language which, in that same book, He mentions. (1942.08.15 - Sec)
> 
> - As to your question regarding the possibility of an artificial
> production of life my means of an incubator; this is essentially a matter
> that concerns science, and as such should be investigated and studied by
> scientists. (1937.12.31 - Sec)
> 
> 3.5 This leads us to the Guardian's own definition of the limitations
> of the sphere of his infallibility as Interpreter.
> 
> - Shoghi Effendi is infallible only when interpreting the words. He
> considers it heretic to attribute to him a station equal to Bahá'u'lláh or
> even to the Master. His station is Guardian of the Cause of God and the
> President of the House of Justice,
> and the interpreter of the words and nothing more. He absolutely
> disclaims any other station that the friends, through their great love,
> wrongly attribute to him. (1938.09.18 - Sec)
> 
> - The Guardian's personal powers are not unlimited and are different
> from those possessed by the Master. But the degree of guidance which God
> may choose to vouchsafe to him is unlimited, as it comes from Bahá'u'lláh
> and not himself. Any extraordinary
> manifestation of knowledge or intuition he might on some occasions
> demonstrate must not be attributed to his possession of powers akin to the
> Master's, but rather to a manifestation of the Will of Bahá'u'lláh guiding
> him for His own reasons on that occasion. The Guardian is the infallible
> interpreter of the word of God. His words are not the Word of God itself.
> But his interpretation is as binding as the Word. (1941.11.20 - Sec)
> 
> - He likes to be provided with facts by the friends, when they ask his
> advice, for although his decisions are guided by God, he is not, like the
> Prophet, omniscient at will, in spite of the fact that he often senses a
> situation or condition without having any detailed knowledge of it.
> (1948.03.04 - Sec)
> 
> - Anything that is not in the Teachings, the Guardian does not pass
> upon. These are matters for scientists and specialists. (1953.09.29 - Sec)
> 
> An implication of the Will and Testament that must not be lost sight
> of is the injunction on the friends to obey the Guardian and the House of
> Justice. This may be related to their functions of divinely-guided
> interpretation and legislation, but it is not necessarily the same thing
> and can apply in other contexts, as is shown from the following
> explanations from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi.
> 
> - As to the Master's injunction concerning obedience to the Guardian it
> should be made clear that the question of deciding what matters require
> the obedience of the Guardian is one which the latter alone has the full
> right to conscientiously decide.
> In other words, it is for the Guardian to say whether a certain action is
> injurious to the Cause or not, and whether it calls for his personal
> intervention. It is not for individual believers to limit the sphere of
> the Guardian's authority, or to judge when they have to obey the Guardian
> and when they are free to reject his judgement. Such an attitude would
> evidently lead to confusion and to schism. The Guardian being the
> appointed interpreter of the Teachings, it is his responsibility to state
> what matters which, affecting the interests of the Faith, demand on the
> part of the believers complete and unqualified obedience to his
> instructions. (1933.11.27 - Sec)
> 
> - The infallibility of the Guardian is confined to matters which are
> related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings; he is
> not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science,
> etc. When he feels that a certain thing is essential for the protection
> of the Cause, even if it is something that effects a person personally, he
> must be obeyed, but when he gives advice, such as that he gave you in a
> previous letter about your future, it is not binding; you are free
> to follow it or not as you please. (1944.10.17 - Sec)
> 
> - Future Guardians cannot `abrogate' the interpretations of former
> Guardians, as this would imply not only a lack of guidance but mistakes in
> making them; however, they can elaborate and elucidate former
> interpretations, and can certainly abrogate so me formal ruling laid down
> as a temporary necessity by a former Guardian. (1947.02.19 - Sec)
> 
> 3.6 Now I find it very interesting that all the questions that I have
> given so far, which are, for the most part what previous dispensations
> have regarded as compromising "interpretation" are all in the words of the
> Guardian's secretaries. He himself devoted his main attention in this
> field, not to the elucidation of obscure passages or the definition of
> terms used in the Scriptures, but to the illumination of the overall
> significance of the Revelation. He would take certain themes, such as the
> nature and significance of the Bahá'í way of life, the theory and
> functioning of Bahá'í institutions, the relationship of the Cause to
> current events and its place in the history of mankind, the station of the
> Master, the destiny of certain Bahá'í communities, the proper way of
> teaching the Faith, and, with his own hand, write long letters which, like
> the string of a necklace, would thread together quotations from the Bab,
> Bahá'u'lláh and the Master, showing the sources from which ideas were
> welling up,
> the implications and importance of those passages and the actions that
> they called for from the believers.
> 
> This, to my mind, is the greatest aspect of the Guardian's function as
> Interpreter. This Revelation is so enormous, so profound, that the
> believers would be struggling like minnows in the shallows of a vast
> ocean. He it was, following in the footsteps of the Master, who drew
> together those aspects of the Cause that require our immediate attention,
> showed their relationship to the vast implications of the entire
> Revelation, the riches of which we are only beginning to taste, and gave
> us a vision of our work far into the future, even to the end and beyond
> the end of this Dispensation.
> 
> 3.7 In "the Dispensation of Bahá'u'lláh" Shoghi Effendi wrote that
> "Without such an institution" as the Guardianship "the means required to
> enable" the Faith "to take a long, an uninterrupted view over a series of
> generations would be completely lacking." I have heard friends relate
> this statement to the fact that the Guardianship is a hereditary
> institution, and that it was this hereditary factor that would provide the
> means to the Faith to take this long view. I have not seen this point made
> in any of the Guardian's writings, however, and it seems to me that
> although, of course, there is an element of truth in the assumption, the
> mere fact that each Guardian would have succeeded his father in office
> does not seem an adequate basis for the exercise of such an exclusive
> function. The function of inspired interpreter, however, does imply it. As
> interpreter the Guardian is able to understand not only the outward
> meaning of the Writings but their inner implications. although others, by
> studying the Writings and the progress of human affairs, can gain some
> idea of the way society will develop, the Guardian alone could clearly see
> the whole panorama of Bahá'u'lláh's intention and could delineate for us
> the course that the Manifestation of God se es as lying before us. This,
> indeed, Shoghi Effendi has done in his World Order letters and also in
> "God Passes By". The latter is not only a history book, magnificent though
> it may be in that respect, it is also an inspired commentary on the events
> it recounts, illuminates the past, challenges us in the present and gives
> us a vision of the future.
> 
> These writings have already been wonderfully described by Counsellor
> Isobel Sabri in her talk two weeks ago.
> 
> METADATA
> 
> Views19517 views since posted 1997; last edit 2024-07-15 22:28 UTC;
> 
> previous at archive.org.../semple_interpretation_guardianship;
> URLs changed in 2010, see archive.org.../bahai-library.org
> Language
> English
> Permission
> author and publisher
> History
> Scanned 1997 by Robert Stauffer; Proofread 1997 by Robert Stauffer.
> Share
> 
> Shortlink: bahai-library.com/1210
> Citation: ris/1210
> 
> select Collection:
> Archives
> Articles
> Articles-unpublished
> Audio
> Bibliographies
> BIC
> Biographies
> Books
> Chronologies
> Compilations
> Compilations-NSA
> Compilations-personal
> Documents
> East-asia
> Encyclopedia
> Essays
> Etc
> Excerpts
> Fiction
> Glossaries
> Guardian
> Histories
> Introductory
> Letters
> Maps
> Music
> Newspapers
> NSA-documents
> NSA-letters
> Personal
> Pilgrims
> Poetry
> Presentations
> Resources
> Reviews
> Scripts
> Software
> Statistics
> Study
> Talks
> Theses
> Transcripts
> Translations
> UHJ-documents
> UHJ-letters
> Video
> Visual
> Writings
> 
> home
> 
> sitemap
> 
> series
> 
> chronology
> 
> search:
> author
> 
> title
> 
> date
> 
> tags
> 
> adv. search
> languages
> 
> inventory
> 
> bibliography
> 
> abbreviations
> 
> links
> 
> about
> 
> contact
> 
> RSS
> 
> new
>
> — *Interpretation and the Guardianship (Used by permission of the curator)*