• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb

firedragon

Veteran Member
That being said, Isaiah 7:14 is clear whether:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a young woman will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).

or

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel," (Isaiah 7:14).

Have you ever noticed that this translation makes a future tense out of a perfect tense while in other places like Genesis 16:11 it has made it perfect tense as in "have conceived" and not "Will conceive"?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I am aware that Christians apply their own messiah onto these passages. Perhaps though they are not as familiar with the idea that Benjamin is a wolf ( Genesis 49 ), and that Jacob was developing the the nation of Israel as a flock of lambs ( Genesis 30 ). Isaiah would have known this, and Isaiah's Jewish audience would have known this. So if there is symbolism in Isaiah 11:6, it's more likely symbolizing the reconciliation of the south and the north territories.

I would like to read a commentary with this view if you could furnish one. I am not disagreeing of course because its valid, so please give me a name of a commentary that maybe i could purchase that has this particular view.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I would like to read a commentary with this view if you could furnish one. I am not disagreeing of course because its valid, so please give me a name of a commentary that maybe i could purchase that has this particular view.
Here's something online:

hyperlink >>> chabad.org - Sheep

However, I think I can find more... it's the part about Jacob and the lambs that you're curious about?
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
Here's something online:

hyperlink >>> chabad.org - Sheep

However, I think I can find more... it's the part about the Jacob that you're curious about?

Yes. Because i read an Isaiah targum which directly speaks about the future messiah and the advent of a deep peaceful time. I am not a Jew bro so my access to different perspectives is low. Thus i would love to read other views. I remember hearing a guy saying something in your line but that was too long ago and i really cant recall.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Yes. Because i read an Isaiah targum which directly speaks about the future messiah and the advent of a deep peaceful time. I am not a Jew bro so my access to different perspectives is low. Thus i would love to read other views. I remember hearing a guy saying something in your line but that was too long ago and i really cant recall.
Yes, no problem...

It looks like the idea that Jacob was cultivating peaceful observance towards G-d in Genesis 30 is coming from Midrash Rabbah Shir HaShirim. I'm still looking though...

I'm specifically looking for something which says that Jacob's flock symbolized the beginning of the Jewish nation.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes, no problem...

It looks like the idea that Jacob was cultivating peaceful observance towards G-d in Genesis 30 is coming from Midrash Rabbah Shir HaShirim. I'm still looking though...

I'm specifically looking for something which says that Jacob's flock symbolized the beginning of the Jewish nation.

Thats awesome. Thanks. But dont worry bro. Only if you randomly find something, otherwise its fine. Thank you so much. really appreciate it.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The purpose of the NT sacred writers was to justify, through their Scripture, who they believed Jesus to be. Matthew and Luke present a constructed genealogy for that purpose. Hebrews presents further justification for Jesus' royal priesthood, in the 'manner of Melchizedek'. I'm not suggesting that there is no case for discounting the Davidic lineage, but to remember that the Gospels are faith testomonies of who they believed Jesus to be.

I agree and that is made clear from the text itself (John 20:31). My main point is that Jesus did not fulfil all the prophecies and some Christians have tried to make Jesus fit prophecy that isn’t relevant to Jesus or the Revelation He brought. One thing that Jesus hasn’t brought is world peace. However in having His Gospel taught to all nations He has laid the foundation for world peace to come about if that’s what humanity wants.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
Was Baha’u’llah looking at the Hebrew in the Torah? Did Baha’u’llah read and understand Hebrew?
Good question... and, as I understand it, the gospel writers used the Septuagint, which gave them a more favorable translation of Isaiah 7:14. But still, even I can see that it doesn't fit the context.

Christians and Baha’is believe Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah whose advent was clearly prophesied in Hebrew Scriptures.
Not so "clearly".

Jesus being born to a Virgin has nothing to do with whether He fulfilled Isaiah 7:14 though cynics will argue the text was written with this verse from Isaiah in mind.
From the Complete Jewish Bible:
5Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: 6'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us,' 7So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass... 14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. 16For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

I don't think a person has to be a "cynic" to see something weird is going on here. The context is about a boy in the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. Besides, Baha'is themselves show how Jesus did not fulfill many of the prophecies Christians say he did. But where does that leave us if Jesus didn't fulfill at least some of the prophecies? And, even if we think he fulfilled some of them, how can we trust the gospel writers if they manipulated verses to create prophecies? If they did, then aren't they false prophets for making claims about Jesus that weren't true?
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
From the Complete Jewish Bible:
5Since Aram planned harm to you, Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, saying: 6'Let us go up against Judah and provoke it, and annex it to us; and let us crown a king in its midst, one who is good for us,' 7So said the Lord God, 'Neither shall it succeed, nor shall it come to pass... 14Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel. 15Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good. 16For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned."

Matthew 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”).

I don't think a person has to be a "cynic" to see something weird is going on here. The context is about a boy in the time of Isaiah and King Ahaz. Besides, Baha'is themselves show how Jesus did not fulfill many of the prophecies Christians say he did. But where does that leave us if Jesus didn't fulfill at least some of the prophecies? And, even if we think he fulfilled some of them, how can we trust the gospel writers if they manipulated verses to create prophecies? If they did, then aren't they false prophets for making claims about Jesus that weren't true?

I'm not aware of any Baha'i writings the refer specifically to Isaiah 7:14. Prophecies are often vague and somewhat cryptic. Prophecies need not necessarily refer to one just event. So while a verse may have a clear historic association as it does here, it can also have an allegorical meaning or reference to a future event. So while the Jews have a good point with this verse, so too do the Christians IMHO. That is my provisional opinion that I'm happy to reconsider if presented with new and compelling evidence to the contrary. Regardless, whether or not Christ meets various criteria as seen by either Christians, Jews or Baha'is is not the main reason I would reject or accept Christ.

Not so "clearly".

Two thousand years on we the Gospel accounts and the Apostolic letters have stood the test of time, the Church as been blessed and the transforming power of the Revelation of Jesus has proven itself to me personally and countless people I have come across throughout life. So on a personal level it is clear.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Have you ever noticed that this translation makes a future tense out of a perfect tense while in other places like Genesis 16:11 it has made it perfect tense as in "have conceived" and not "Will conceive"?

I hadn't thought about it exactly like that but what you say makes sense.
 

CG Didymus

Veteran Member
However in having His Gospel taught to all nations He has laid the foundation for world peace to come about if that’s what humanity wants.
Two thousand years on we the Gospel accounts and the Apostolic letters have stood the test of time, the Church as been blessed and the transforming power of the Revelation of Jesus has proven itself
The early Roman Church don't sound all that great for bringing the gospel and laying a foundation for peace. Part of the "gospel" was Jesus was part of a trinity and that if you don't convert you will burn in hell. In fact, if people didn't convert they were sometimes tortured and killed. And, Baha'is have said that by 622AD, Christianity had lost its way so bad that God needed to send a new messenger, Muhammad, to set things straight.

and a little child shall lead them.
But, back to the wolves and lambs, what is the Baha'i interpretation of this last part about a "child" leading them?
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. The purpose was not a chronological or biographical history. That does not mean that nothing is historical or that Jesus did not do or say what is reported, but used here and there according to the author's intent. We cannot discount the theology and the christology of the sacred writers who wrote decades later with post resurrection faith.
One question. Where are they now?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
And, Baha'is have said that by 622AD, Christianity had lost its way so bad that God needed to send a new messenger, Muhammad, to set things straight.

The Quran corrected crucial concepts that would make it hard for people to accept the One God at the end of ages.

Materially Christianity was also in dark times, it took the new heaven and new earth of Muhammad's Revelation to enable Christianity to gain a new spark of light.

Migration period | European history

It was Christain Scholar's travelling and learning from Muslims that brought new thoughts.

Regards Tony
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
The early Roman Church don't sound all that great for bringing the gospel and laying a foundation for peace. Part of the "gospel" was Jesus was part of a trinity and that if you don't convert you will burn in hell. In fact, if people didn't convert they were sometimes tortured and killed. And, Baha'is have said that by 622AD, Christianity had lost its way so bad that God needed to send a new messenger, Muhammad, to set things straight.

When the Emperor Constantine became a Christian he found the bishops arguing about doctrinal matters. That was resolved through a series of Councils. Though I do not necessarily agree with the outcome of those Councils, the key issue at that time was to build unity and having an agreed on Creed (The Nicene) was better than not agreeig on anything at all and continuing to incessantly quibble. There was the very real possibility of schism as a result of what Arius was presenting. The Creed that was supported and the Arian beliefs that were rejected carried the mandate of the Emperor with severe consequences (death) for anyone who had copies of Arius's work in their possession. Ironically there were future Emperors who were supporters of Arius so it was all somewhat of a mess. The Roman Empire fragmented into East (Byzantium) and West. The Western Roman Empire had completely collapsed by 476 AD. The West was eventually brought together through the Holy Roman Empire perhaps initially through the coronation of Charlemange in 800 AD.

Charlemagne - Wikipedia

Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia

The Bzyantium Empire of Eastern Roman Empire survived the fragmentation of the Western Empire until its fall to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

It would be interesting to have a thorough analysis of the state of Christianity during the seventh to eighth centuries as Islam rapidly emerged as a dominant force. We've already had some discussion about this era of history in considering the book of Revelation. Its that last book of the Christian Bible that according to the Baha'is

But, back to the wolves and lambs, what is the Baha'i interpretation of this last part about a "child" leading them?

It looks Messianic and perhaps relates to Isaiah 9:6-7.
 

loverofhumanity

We are all the leaves of one tree
Premium Member
Another passage which seems to indicate to me that this language is symbolical is

John 1 29-30

The next day he *saw Jesus coming to him and *said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’

Note that in this passage Jesus is referred to as both a Lamb and a Man. So from the scriptures themselves Lamb = Man. I believe this is quite clear.
 

WonderingWorrier

Active Member
I think the wolf has always been with the lamb. And the lion has always been with the ox.
It is the lion and the ox that eat straw with the bear. They are not with the wolf and the lamb.
The wolf and the lamb is with the horse. They eat the stubble.
That is the law.
 

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
In this thread I’d like to explore the possible meanings of the verses expressed by the Hebrew Prophet Isaiah 11:6-8 as recorded in the Tanakh.

Isaiah was the 8th-century BC Israelite prophetafter whom the Book of Isaiah is named.

Within the text of the Book of Isaiah, Isaiah himself is referred to as "the prophet", but the exact relationship between the Book of Isaiah and any such historical Isaiah is complicated. The traditional view is that all 66 chapters of the book of Isaiah were written by one man, Isaiah, possibly in two periods between 740 BC and c. 686 BC, separated by approximately 15 years, and includes dramatic prophetic declarations of Cyrus the Great in the Bible, acting to restore the nation of Israel from Babylonian captivity. Another widely held view is that parts of the first half of the book (chapters 1–39) originated with the historical prophet, interspersed with prose commentaries written in the time of King Josiah a hundred years later, and that the remainder of the book dates from immediately before and immediately after the end of the exile in Babylon, almost two centuries after the time of the historical prophet.

Isaiah - Wikipedia


The verses in question appear to be problematic if taken literally as we have animals at peace with each other that would be innately opposed and even having a predator-prey relationship. So the verses most likely have some other meanings. What could they mean? I’m wondering if Jews, Christians and Baha’is would understand the verses differently and if so, how?

Here are the verses as recorded in the King James Version.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.



Reminiscent of Plato's allegory of the chariot
 
Top