Hebrews 11:15,16

‘And if indeed they had been mindful of that from which they went out, they would have had opportunity to return. But now they desire a better, that is, a heavenly, for which reason God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God. For he has prepared for them a city.'

Indeed had they been so minded they had every opportunity to return to whence they came. Had they desired to do so, they could have done so. They could have turned back from their hope. Their family was still there and they could have joined them. (Abraham in fact specifically had to forbid his servant to take Isaac back to the old land (Genesis 24:6), while Jacob's troubles began when he did for a time settle in the old land, only for God to put pressure on him to return again to the land of promise (Genesis 31:3)). But their desire was for something better, for something heavenly. Jacob's dream of a stairway between heaven and earth confirms that they had some idea of the heavenly as connecting with earth. They believed in contact between earth and Heaven. Possibly they saw God's land as where earth and heaven would meet (as Jacob's dream might well have been seen as suggesting). And their faith was set on that.

And the same was true for his readers. They too must not be ‘mindful' of returning to the old ways. Their eyes must be fixed on the something better that He has revealed to them, on that which is heavenly. And if they do so fix their eyes, like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Sarah, God will not be ashamed of them. He will remember them and will continue to fulfil His promises towards them. For let them recognise this, God has already prepared for them a city. What their hope is set on is already a certainty. It awaits them in heaven (Hebrews 12:22). Let them not then return to the old ways.

Note On The City And Country That They Sought.

There was in Abraham's day no concept of Heaven in the way we know of it today through New Testament revelation. Their ideas were closely tied to this world, although with heavenly connections, as Jacob's dream makes clear. Thus the city and country they looked for would have been conceived of, in so far as it was conceived of at all, as being on this earth, although of an unusual nature and resulting from the activity of God. Abraham would have felt at one with Isaiah's picture of a city whose sanctuary reached up into the heavens (Isaiah 2:2). But it is doubtful if the concept would in fact have been thought out in any detailed way. They just knew that it would be something wonderful, which would be enjoyed by their descendants, something directly from God. It would be God's city in God's country. The writer, however, as a result of later revelation, recognises quite clearly that it would be a heavenly country, and says so. He makes no suggestion that it will be on earth at all. He links it with the New Testament view of the future in the ‘heavenly' realm (see also Hebrews 12:22).

These views of the patriarchs tie in with the many prophetic promises in the Old Testament which appear to suggest a city and a country on earth, with heavenly connections. Again there was no conception in those days of a life in Heaven. That awaited future revelation. Thus they portrayed their dreams in earthly terms. But they certainly looked to the future kingdom as being everlasting. Not for them the idea of a restricted Millennium.

Thus we need to recognise in our interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies that they were visions of the future put in the terms that men and women could understand and appreciate. Even Isaiah's description of the resurrection assumes a resurrection to a seeming life on earth (Isaiah 25:6; Isaiah 26:19). Just as the primitive eskimo would, if it was to have any meaning to him, have needed to be taught about the eternal future in terms of igloos and seals, so did the people of the Old Testament have to be taught that eternal future in terms of an earthly country and an earthly city (although with close heavenly connections). They had no other way of conceiving of them. The representations were symbolic representations of a greater reality. For we should note that there is no suggestion in any New Testament letters of a Millennium. (Revelation 20 should be interpreted in the light of that fact. In fact a careful exegesis of it demonstrates that the thousand years was a symbolic representation of the current age, as it was in 2 Peter 3:8).

The New Testament writers believed that the end was ‘imminent'. It surely therefore requires us to have a strange idea of them if we think that they ignored something so important as a Millennium which they believed was almost on them. Can anyone imagine modern Bible teachers who believe in the Millennium writing about the Lord's coming and never once mentioning the Millennium? They seem unable to get away from it.

Careful thought will reveal that what we are saying must be so. Literal interpretation results in the need for a reoccurrence of the Old Testament sacrifices in a propitiatory sense. Any suggestion of so-called ‘memorial sacrifices' is purely a modern invention. That is not the impression given by Scripture. (Thus the view of such interpreters is that when interpreting literally we do not have to interpret too literally). Memorial sacrifices are nowhere suggested in the Old Testament, and the coming future ritual is always depicted as being exactly the same as the ritual at the time, although in greater measure. But the levitical priests with their sacrifices were copies and shadows which were past their time. And this is precisely what the writer to the Hebrews has declared has been done away. He would never have countenanced the revival of the levitical priesthood. It was to be done away. Nor would such ‘memorial sacrifices' fit into a world where there was no more killing of animals (Isaiah 11:6). If that were so only man would be shedding blood in an otherwise perfect world!

End of note.