Commentary on Isaiah

The are several, but this one .... Young's is excellent

http://www.logos.com/product/3637/the-book-of-isaiah

Then there is Motyer

http://www.logos.com/product/601/the-prophecy-of-isaiah

NAC, Cornerstone, and  WBC

CTS Commentary Recommendations:

http://www.covenantseminary.edu/academics/library/guides/commentaries-isaiah/

RMC said:

I'm going to be starting a study on Isaiah in the new year, and was wondering if you have any recommendations for commentaries.

I am not sure if this is of any help, you may have already come across it:

http://www.logos.com/Isaiah

It's the Logos Product Guide for all things Isaiah.

http://www.bestcommentaries.com/isaiah/

is also helpful, it does say it indicates what is available in Logos format.  What is useful, besides a community based rating, is that it gives an indication of whether the commentary is at a level of Technical, Pastoral, Devotional or Special Study.

Maybe if you can given an indication of whether you are purely doing personal study, preparing a sermon series or writing  a paper etc it will be able to help those who are best equipped to give more specific recommendations to better serve you.

Andrew McKenzie said:

I am not sure if this is of any help, you may have already come across it:

http://www.logos.com/Isaiah

great link Andrew... now I've got to check the links for other books!

It's not a commentary but I just picked up Encountering the Book of Isaiah, part of the Encountering Biblical Studies collection. It written by Bryan E Beyer. Love to hear some input from the scholars on it, others in the series have been a nice addition to study and use in our Bible College.

George Somsel said:

5 Solas said:

The are several, but this one .... Young's is excellent

http://www.logos.com/product/3637/the-book-of-isaiah

 

I wouldn't trust Young to take out the garbage.  His introduction was so annoying that I was tempted to throw it against the wall.  I would suggest Sweeny's work on Is 1-39 in the FOTL series.

Do you not like Young because he doesn't present Isaiah from a "Millennial" "Pre-millennial" point of view? I agree with others who like Young he's great and won't feed you lies like other premillennial/millennial liars do.  Just face it Millennialism and premillennialism are just 2 dangerous -isms that will get your soul damned in hell for ever.  

George Somsel said:

I don't like Young because he's an idiot

George, you're writing like a curmudgeon! I find Young a bit verbose, but I usually look him up if I have a question about Isaiah which the other commentaries don't answer.  I guess it's a  matter of taste.

Michael Childs said:

By all means get your hands on Oswalt's two volumes on Isaiah.  I may be a little biased on this one, but I am a lot right on it.

Oswalt is excellent, if rather meaty. He's less dogmatic than Young, and also less stodgy, but demands more from the reader. Yet he's also available in the NIV Application series, which is much more accessible and applied. Unfortunately both his commentaries are only available in sets.

http://www.logos.com/product/5461/niv-application-commentary-old-testament-prophets

http://www.logos.com/product/5185/the-new-international-commentary-on-the-old-and-new-testament

Here are two screenshots for comparison. The first shows Oswalt's NICOT on the right, and Young on the left. The second shows two pages from Oswalt's NIVAC. The format from that commentary is to split comment into three sections, so you need to see an extract from each section for a true comparison.

5 Solas said:

Though I am A-Mil, I still like Young for the scholarship he brings to the table. I read 'outside' of my theological persuation as often there is A LOT of good stuff in their content overall. I never agree 100% with ANY commentary. As matter a fact, as I mature in grace and truth, 10 years from now I will find some things I do not even agree with in my own  ..... Always Reforming. 

My opposition to Young stems not from any eschatological position.  My comment on that was simply in response to the Bag's remark.  I rather oppose his view of scripture and the tediousness with which he writes.  If you would care to post his remarks on Is 7.14, I think that will well demonstrate the problem.

5 Solas said:

I do not know how to attach texts and all to this forum, but it is online:

http://www.dabar.org/SemReview/Young-Isaiah7.htm

Young attempts to establish that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus.  Shazzam! [li]  He knows it all.  Am I saying that God could not have put such in his mind?  No, that is not what I am saying.  God is God and can do whatever he jolly well pleases, but that is not the way he operates.  We find that God is faithful and maintains the "rules" by which the universe he has created operates.  First, it should be noted that this is designated as a sign.  A sign which signifies nothing is not a sign.  OK, here is a portion of his statement

Edward J Young said:

Why too does not Isaiah make clear who this child is to whom he is referring? From the meager data which he gives there is not sufficient warrant for saying that the child is his own. And certainly there is no warrant for saying that the child is Hezekiah, for as Jerome long ago pointed out, Hezekiah had already been born at this time. What warrant would the wife of Isaiah have for calling a child of hers Immanuel, supposing that there were some child born to her in addition to Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, and assuming that this particular child was the sign intended? And what warrant would the wife of Ahaz have for making a similar assumption about the birth of Hezekiah? For if the sign was to have meaning, not only the mother of the child know by direct revelation from God that her own child is the precise sign intended by God, but the nation generally must also know this fact so that it can properly appreciate the sign. Otherwise, the child might be born and the nation would have no means of knowing, unless further revelation were given to it through the prophet, that one particular child was the sign intended by God.

Note that Young attempts to pooh-pooh the idea that Isaiah could have been referencing Hezekiah by stating categorically that Hezekiah had already been born.  But had he?  The time-line at this point is totally unclear.  The AYBD notes

AYBD said:

The precise timing of Ahaz’s accession is obscured by the conflicting references in 2 Kgs 16:2 and 2 Chr 28:1 when compared with the contradictory information about the death of Ahaz and the accession of Hezekiah (2 Kgs 16:19–20; 18:1). If Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz when he was 25 years old (2 Kgs 18:2), then Ahaz could only have been 11 years old when he became a father since he is said to have been 36 at the time of his death (2 Chr 28:2).

. Edited by Freedman, David Noel, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al sv "Ahaz". New York: Doubleday, 1996.

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary

It is possible, and probably has happened, that an 11 yr old could become a father, but it seems highly unlikely—as does the requirement that he would have died at 36 (possible, but not likely given the details of the record).

Regarding the use of the Hebrew word עלמה to designate the mother he states

Edward J Young said:

And this is a good consideration, one which cannot be avoided in any serious study of this particular Messianic prophecy. Why is it that, of the various available words in the Hebrew language, Isaiah selects this particular one for a designation of the mother? …. Why, however, did he choose the word 'almah? The answer is ready at hand, for 'almah is a word which is never used of a married woman.

Really??  Well, perhaps not married, but certainly not a virgin in the modern sense of the term

TANAK said:

2 Oh, give me of the kisses of your mouth,  For your love is more delightful than wine.3Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance,  Your name is like finest oil—  Therefore do maidens [עלמות] love you.4Draw me after you, let us run!  The king has brought me to his chambers.  Let us delight and rejoice in your love,  Savoring it more than wine—  Like new wine they love you!

Oh, give me of the kisses of your mouth,  For your love is more delightful than wine.3Your ointments yield a sweet fragrance,  Your name is like finest oil—  Therefore do
Regarding the name he states
Edward J Young said:

The sign, then, which the Lord gives to His people is simply the declaration that the Messiah will be born and that His birth will be of a supernatural kind. Matthew is entirely correct in thus interpreting the verse, when he remarks: "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold! a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matthew 1:22,23). And what greater, more comforting sign than this could there be? Those who truly waited for the consolation of Israel need not fear even the folly of their king, for this dark moment of Israel's history God sent a ray of light, the announcement of the sure birth of the promised Redeemer.

^{But still a sign which is not seen is not a sign. Let us consider the name Emmanuel—"God [is?] with us."}

^{The king was considered to be adopted as the son of God at his accession to the throne.}

^{TANAK said:}

^{4He who is enthroned in heaven laughs;
  the Lord mocks at them.
5Then He speaks to them in anger,
  terrifying them in His rage,
6"But I have installed My king
  on Zion, My holy mountain!"
7Let me tell of the decree:
  the Lord said to me,
  "You are My son,
  I have fathered you this day.}

^{Ps 2:4-7}

^{The author of the Gospel according to Matthew used this passage and understood the "maiden" to be a literal virgin in the modern sense of the term. Such appropriation of an OT passage is not uncommon in the NT. It did not, however, thereby obviate the meaning of the text in its historical context. The sign in Isaiah was that a member of the group at court designated as a member of the עלמות was pregnant and would bear a son who would subsequently become king.}

^{TANAK said:}

^{6For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned.}

^{I. e., before the child achieves the status of manhood, the kings whom Ahaz dreaded would be no more.}

^{Judaism 101 said:So what does it mean to become a bar mitzvah? Under Jewish Law, children are not obligated to observe the commandments, although they are encouraged to do so as much as possible to learn the obligations they will have as adults. At the age of 13 (12 for girls), children become obligated to observe the commandments. … The celebrant is also generally required to make a speech, which traditionally begins with the phrase "today I am a man."}

http://www.jewfaq.org/barmitz.htm

^{Young's problem is that he never learned to read a book. You don't read from back to front (unless you are reading Hebrew, in which case "back" is still "front"). You don't read Matthew and use it to interpret Isaiah.}

Ted Hans said:

5 Solas, I can see from your post count that you are relatively new to the forum. You have listed some of Young's credentials but it is a miss fire with George because George disagrees profoundly with Young's view of the scripture. Below is what i am referring to & scholars who hold such a position are not real scholars in George's view

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

"We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free
from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical
infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive
themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further
deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to
overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the
flood.

Being wholly and verbally
God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in
what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history,
and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's
saving grace in individual lives."

Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...

Ted Hans said:

5 Solas said:

Thanks Ted, now I understand somewhat better ...

See this thread http://community.logos.com/forums/p/11287/88406.aspx#88406

Thanks that is an eye-opener. George you will be in our prayers (literally).

RMC said:

As far as the finer points being brought up, I'm certainly not knowledgeable enough to contribute much to this conversation, but it is fascinating reading.  This thread will be interesting to come back to and thoroughly digest after I have a chance to do my own study.  As far as the original purpose of the thread, I do hold firmly to inspired biblical inerrancy (in its original language, as originally written - I do not hold to inerrancy of translations or even of the manuscripts that have been handed down, although I do hold to their reliability)  and would prefer a commentary that holds to this view as well.  In other words, for my purposes, if Matthew 1:22-23 says that Isaiah 7:14 is a Messianic prophecy, I'm going to go with that unless it can be shown that that isn't what Matthew originally said.  It's fascinating to me to go into the original language and see how Matthew saw this as a Messianic prophecy, and to see how the multiple fulfillment of prophecy works out.  I just love the depths of God's word.

What kind of inerrancy is that?  First you must know the original languages.  Then you must have the autographs (long since turned to dust).  I would contend that we have the word of God today—including in any decent translation.  It is the message conveyed by the text that informs our life in our relationship with God and our neighbor.