Isaiah 46:11

“Calling a bird of prey from the east,

The man of my counsel from a far country,

Yes I have spoken, I also bring it about,

I have purposed, I also will do it.”

Let them remember the former things, His ancient activity, and what He has declared which is still not yet done. Isaiah is now dealing with God's prime purposes in history and their fulfilment, and he therefore again briefly recapitulates the advent of Abraham (Isaiah 41:2), for the prime example of Yahweh's ancient activity is Abraham and the raising up of the Servant. He was called from the East and descended as a bird of prey on Canaan, establishing himself in the land, ridding it of the king of Babylon (Shinar) and then through his descendants driving out the inhabitants. He was also a man after God's own heart, who did all His will and followed His counsel. He was truly and literally ‘a man of my counsel'. He above all men vividly received the counsel of Yahweh, and responded to it. His whole life resulted from following that counsel. Which was why (from Israel's viewpoint) Egypt, Babylon and the Philistines all submitted to him.

Cyrus was not a man of God's counsel. The men of God's counsel were His messengers the prophets (Isaiah 44:26). And in the context the description requires one involved in God's counsels from the beginning.

Abraham has already been described as ‘a man from the east' in Isaiah 41:2, which see. And has previously been used to demonstrate Yahweh's power to influence history (Isaiah 41:4). Now he is briefly brought back into the picture so that we are reminded of the prime message of this part of Isaiah, the coming forth of the Servant, preparatory to the destruction of that hindrance to all God's working, Babylon, which is all part of the ancient plan. For Abraham is the original Servant.

‘The man of My counsel.' We have been told in Isaiah 46:11 that His counsel is from ancient times, and goes on in terms of what is ‘not yet done. For He declares the end from the beginning. Thus the one in mind here must be someone involved continually in God's plans, His Servant, who commenced with Abraham and will continue to the end. This was just not true of Cyrus who was a momentary bright star. But Abraham was the first prophet (Isaiah 44:26 with Genesis 20:7).

‘Bird of prey' must not be seen as a derogatory title, any more than is ‘lion' which can be used of God's favourites (Numbers 23:24; Numbers 24:8). It is rather the description of someone strong and powerful descending swiftly on the unsuspecting, and seizing the prey, which is exactly what Abraham and his descendants did to their enemies.

Nor must the tenses of the verbs deceive us. As we have regularly seen they do not indicate chronology but completeness and incompleteness. We could paraphrase as ‘when I have spoken I bring it about, when I have purposed I do it'. And we must remember that when Abraham was called his seed was called in him. This would result in still future ‘callings' for ‘Abraham' in the call of the Servant at different times; in Moses, David and the like, and also the call of the true Israel to be His Servant, and finally the call of the greater David Who would finalise God's purposes (see on Isaiah 41:1 to Isaiah 42:9). What He has spoken in Abraham He will bring about through his seed who entered Canaan in him (Isaiah 41:8).

In Isaiah 41:2 Abraham has been spoken of as ‘called in righteousness', here he is described as ‘a man of my counsel', both titles of full approval and demonstrating that he is fully pleasing to God. Furthermore we should note that this chapter has from Isaiah 46:3 been full of God's care and concern for His people. It has described His bearing and carrying of them, His delivering of them, and His purposes for them from of old, in the controlling of history and carrying out of His will. Thus a brief reintroduction of the Servant here fits aptly

After the surprising prophecy about Cyrus, which was in order to demonstrate how Yahweh would bring in a new era in him, replacing the Temple and subduing the nations, we required some statement like this which would bring us back to the idea of God's prime Servant through whom He will introduce His righteousness and place salvation in Zion for Israel His glory. For the truth is that there is really no reason for again introducing Cyrus here. He has been dispensed with in chapter 45. So here we are brought back to the idea of the original Servant. Isaiah's primary concern is with the final triumph of God.

Note on The Bird of Prey From The East.

The most popular attribution by commentaries of this bird of prey from the East is to Cyrus. But that is largely due to reading subsequent history back into Isaiah, and often with a fixation which the text does not support. Because of subsequent history, with its concentration on the Exile in Babylon, they are seized with the idea that ‘Isaiah' must be seen as in Babylon encouraging his people with the hope of a return from that land back to Jerusalem, and that this is therefore a picture of Cyrus swooping on Babylon. But that idea, while superficially attractive, is nowhere apparent from the text. It is certainly nowhere clearly stated there. The text deals in great principles, not in a limited situation of exiles coming home from Babylon. It is therefore something that we have rejected simply for that reason, because it is not what the text says. While superficially plausible it is not the situation that is actually being portrayed.

As we have seen the impression given by the text from the start is in fact far different. It is that Isaiah is in Jerusalem and seeking to evangelise the people of Israel, to bring to them the vision of God, to call exiles to return from all over the world, and supremely to bring out the activity of Yahweh's Servant. Babylon, while having to be dealt with as the enemy of God supreme lurking in the background, is incidental to his main purpose (if Babylon can ever be called incidental), simply acting as the representative of all that is anti-God. It is the city that has to be destroyed because it is the deceiver of the nations and because of its great claims, and because it represents what is bad in all cities. It personifies the world city of Isaiah 24:10; Isaiah 25:2; Isaiah 26:6. It represents idolatry in opposition to God. That is why as the supreme enemy of God it has to be destroyed before the Servant can fulfil his work. But that is because it is a dark and threatening shadow in the background, not because it is actually seen as interfering in the main plot, apart from by its insidiousness.

This is something which had already been stressed in Chapter s 13-14, where Babylon, while treated as one of the nations rising against Assyria, was also depicted as something far greater than that. Whereas in Genesis 3 emphasis was put on the snake behind which lay a dark and shadowy influence, so throughout Isaiah emphasis is laid on Babylon, behind which is a similar dark and shadowy influence. Like the snake Babylon is picked out as the supreme rebel. Both centralise in themselves the world's opposition to God. And this is so because from the very beginning Babylon had represented enmity against God. In Genesis 4 Cain in his rebellion ‘built a city' (established occupation as a group in an encampment or network of caves) and this idea in turn later became centred on Babel (Genesis 10:10; Genesis 11:1; Genesis 14:1). Now that rebellion continues in Babylon.

In fact if we look from the point of view of history the destruction of Babylon actually described in Isaiah goes far beyond anything that Cyrus did. Babylon is to be totally destroyed, and it is Yahweh Who will bring it about as Israel's Kinsman Redeemer (Isaiah 47:4). Cyrus in fact actually left Babylon largely unaffected except for its change of ruler.

And it will be noted how often it is necessary in Isaiah for commentators to apologise for the text because it does not quite say what they want it to say. They would rather suggest that Isaiah was wrong (about for example the Medes in chapter 13) than discard their interesting but mistaken hypothesis. But the hypothesis to accept is, if at all possible, the one that fits the facts stated.

For the problem is that the text is continually uncompliant with their hypothesis. It just does not say what they want it to say. The truth is that if describing and calling for the return of exile from Babylon was what the writer was mainly trying to do he has gone a strange way about it. He has constantly refused to make any reference to captivity in Babylon, he has spoken regularly as if he were in Jerusalem, he has not brought mention of Babylon in at crucial points, and when he has referred to the return of exiles it has been of worldwide exiles, not of Babylonian exiles.

What he has actually concentrated on has mainly been the raising of God's Servant preparatory to God's worldwide triumph, while, apart from its fate at His hands, Babylon has been almost ignored. And it will continue to be so except as an example of God's great enemy who has to be dealt with, as already demanded in 13-14. Its mention was necessary to Isaiah because it symbolised ‘the city' as against God. It thus symbolised all cities. That is why it is the one city for which no future hope is ever prophesied. Babylon is to him the example of all that is at enmity with God, and seeking to drag men down, and must therefore be destroyed utterly. But that his silence in so many places about Babylon was not because he was afraid of offending Babylon comes out in his quite open prophecy of its humiliation and destruction in both Isaiah 43:14 and 47. When he does speak of it, it is as what is most insidious, a strange approach to someone supposed to be avoiding offence.

This non-mention of Babylon was true even when writing of the activity of Cyrus. Nothing is said there about Babylon, and even when the destruction of Babylon is described in chapter 47, it is neither connected by the writer with Cyrus, nor with the deliverance of exiles. It stands on its own as an indication of God's final purpose for Babylon (a destruction never actually brought about by Cyrus). And yet, as we have pointed out above, the declaration that Babylon is to be destroyed is evidence enough that he did not veil his writing in fear of what the Babylonians might do.

It is true that there is one reference (Isaiah 48:20) which could just possibly be interpreted as referring to exiles returning from Babylon, but even that is doubtful. The plea there is for those associated with Babylon to disassociate themselves with it in haste. It does not read like an orderly return from Babylon with the agreement of the overlord (Ezra 1), such as later took place. It reads as a desperate flight from all that is evil. A return of exiles from there might indeed be seen as expected and necessary in view of Isaiah 11:11 and Isaiah 39:6, but surely not in these terms. This is not a call to people who have settled in Babylonia to return home, it is a call to all those actually involved with Babylon, to desert her before it is to late. It does not necessarily totally exclude the thought that exiles might be in mind, they too should flee, but it is certainly not a strong case for it.

We can safely say that if someone who knew little of history picked up the book of Isaiah and read it he would not come away with the idea that Chapter s 40-55 were dealing with a return of God's people from Babylon. If he noticed the occasional mention of Babylon he would merely see it as greatly emphasising the need for its destruction. He may see such a destruction as partly due to what Babylon would do to Judah as described in Isaiah 39:6, but he would not see it as part of the main plot. He would certainly note that the need for Babylon to be destroyed is repeated in both sections of the book (especially Chapter s 13-14 and 47), but he would note that that was because of what Babylon signified rather than because of exiles. Thus if he also knew of the references in Genesis he would surely feel that he had gained the clue he was looking for.

Indeed the fact that the impression gained by scholars is of its application to the Babylon situation is rather an indication of the genius of prophecy. Regularly some prophecy which appears only to have one application, does in the future become fulfilled in a totally unexpected way. It is as though God has prepared the way for what is to happen. It demonstrates that such prophecy fits many situations. Consequently in giving His message through Isaiah here we may see God as providing a primer for Israel in whatever situation they found themselves. And that included large scale exile in Babylon. But it does not specifically have that in mind.

And once we rid our minds of the idea that the bird of prey is to descend on Babylon at this point, its application to Cyrus (well away, be it noted, from the context in which Cyrus is dealt with, which is limited to Isaiah 44:27 to Isaiah 45:13) becomes extremely unlikely. This bird of prey has rather come in order to establish righteousness among those who are far from righteousness (Isaiah 46:12), and is playing a part in God's eternal purposes.

End of note.