Why Baha’u’llah cannot be interpreted through an inherited lens
In the introduction to The Archeology of the Kingdom of God, Jean‑Marc Lepain argues that scholars have misunderstood Baha’u’llah’s use of classical terminology. Many assume that when Baha’u’llah employs the vocabulary of Islamic philosophy and mysticism, he is using those terms with their inherited meanings and continuing the conceptual lineage of those traditions. But as Lepain shows, this assumption collapses once we examine how Baha’u’llah actually uses that vocabulary. The words are the same, but this similarity obscures Baha’u’llah’s hidden originality.
The following sections outline Lepain’s arguments on this issue.
1. The writings are mystical and require inner transformation
Lepain begins by noting that Baha’u’llah’s writings do not follow the pattern of classical philosophical systems. They do not begin with definitions or build arguments step by step. Instead, they speak first to the heart, using symbolic language that assumes spiritual perception is part of how meaning is grasped.
This difference in style reflects a deeper difference in method. Baha’u’llah’s writings do not open fully unless the reader is engaged in their own interior transformation. Understanding is tied to sincerity, self‑examination, and the refinement of one’s inner life. Meaning is not extracted through conceptual mastery alone; it arises in relation to the reader’s spiritual condition.
For Lepain, these features signal that Baha’u’llah’s use of this philosophical vocabulary cannot be approached in the usual way. He uses these familiar terms as interpretive tools that guide the reader’s inner movement. The writings must be read with the heart as well as the mind, because the two are not separable in the world Baha’u’llah is describing.
2. Baha’u’llah’s vocabulary does not behave in traditional ways
Lepain observes that when Baha’u’llah uses the familiar vocabulary of the divine worlds—Hahut, Lahut, Jabarut, Malakut, and Nasut—the terms do not function as they do in the classical systems. In the Tablet of All Food, they appear in a context that has no metaphysical purpose at all. Their traditional role as markers in a cosmological structure is simply not in play. The vocabulary is present, but it is not behaving in the way a reader trained in Islamic philosophy would expect.
At the same time, Baha’u’llah speaks of other “worlds” that have no place in the inherited typology. These additional realities cannot be integrated into the classical system, and their presence signals that the familiar five‑fold structure is too narrow to contain the metaphysical landscape Baha’u’llah is describing. The vocabulary expands beyond the boundaries of the old framework, and the inherited system can no longer hold what the text is doing.
Even when Baha’u’llah uses the traditional terms in ways that seem closer to their classical meanings, the relationships he describes between God, revelation, and creation still exceed the limits of the inherited scheme. The classical typology developed gradually over centuries, accumulating layers and diverse formulations. Baha’u’llah’s usage, however, is dynamic: he draws on these terms without being confined to any particular formulation of the cosmology. Some of the realities he outlines would require the system to stretch beyond its own conceptual architecture; others would not fit within it at all.
For Lepain, these features all point to the same conclusion: the presence of the traditional vocabulary does not imply continuity with the classical metaphysical system. The words may be familiar, but the conceptual structure that once held them together is no longer the one shaping their meaning.
3. Baha’u’llah’s vocabulary is redefined in each text and functions as a hermeneutic
Lepain then draws the threads together by suggesting that the meaning of Baha’u’llah’s metaphysical vocabulary is not determined by any external norm, nor even by a single, unified definition across the writings themselves. Instead, each term is continually redefined in relation to the specific text in which it appears. The vocabulary is alive, responsive, and shaped by the spiritual purpose of each passage.
This means the familiar terms are not describing a stable cosmological structure. Baha’u’llah asks the same term to do different work in different contexts, redefining it according to the needs of the text. A word that signals one concept in one tablet may illuminate a different concept in another. This flexibility is intentional. Lepain says that Baha’u’llah “wanted an abundance of meaning” (p. 10). The Word is inexhaustible, and this abundance allows it to speak to the infinite spiritual states a seeker will traverse. The vocabulary is therefore designed to meet the understanding of readers without being limited by it.
For Lepain, this is why the classical typology collapses. It assumes fixed definitions and stable ontological categories. Baha’u’llah’s usage assumes the opposite: that spiritual language must remain fluid, adaptive, and capable of guiding the seeker through changing inner states. The divine worlds vocabulary is therefore hermeneutical rather than cosmological. It is a set of interpretive tools, not a map of the universe. Its purpose is not to describe the structure of reality but to train the seeker in how to perceive it.
Conclusion
Lepain’s analysis suggests three things:
- Baha’u’llah does not present his philosophy in a classical way. He uses mystical terminology because his meaning does not open fully unless the reader is engaged in their own interior transformation.
- Baha’u’llah’s use of terms found in classical systems does not fit within the inherited typology of Islamic philosophy and mysticism. The inherited cosmologies cannot contain the additional “worlds” and divine relationships he describes.
- Baha’u’llah’s metaphysical terms are not intended to construct a cosmology but to provide interpretive tools readers can use to perceive different levels of reality.
Taken together, these points show that Baha’u’llah’s originality cannot be extracted through the conceptual systems that preceded him. The terminology is familiar, but the thought is not. What emerges is not a new cosmology but a new way of reading — a hermeneutic that trains the seeker in how to perceive spiritual reality.
If you’d like to go deeper into the section‑by‑section analysis behind this blog post, the full set of short pieces is available on my Patreon page: https://www.patreon.com/collection/2109454.