THREE SPHERES
BLESSING
63
OF
In order that no statement shall be accepted as true that is not proved from the Scriptures, we pause to justify the
remark that `the dispensation of the mystery was revealed after the setting aside of Israel'. Usually it is enough to
produce the missing link in a chain, but, if the play of words may be pardoned, we have a complete chain of
evidence, and that none other than the one which fettered the apostle Paul in his Roman prison.
Until the all-day conference with the leaders of the Jews which concluded with their dismissal at the quoting of
Isaiah 6, there was the human possibility of the national repentance of Israel, and the realization of that nation's
hope. Consequently, the apostle rightly says in Acts 28:20: `For the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain'.
When next he speaks of his bonds as his chain, the dispensation of the mystery had been entrusted to him, and in
Ephesians 3,4, and 6 and Colossians 4, his chain is most intimately associated with the mystery.
While there is much more to be said concerning the unique character of this new revelation, enough has been
adduced to prove beyond dispute that this dispensation of the mystery, revealed after the setting aside of Israel, must
be different from both the earthly sphere, and the new Jerusalem, and as we have seen that these latter terms
represent two very distinct spheres, we are compelled to subscribe to the doctrine of three spheres of blessing, thus:
. . The Earth.- Subject of Old Testament and part of New Testament. Israel dominant.
(1) FIRST SPHERE
(2) SECOND SPHERE . . New Jerusalem.- Subject only of part of the New Testament. Both Jew and Gentile as
seed of Abraham.
(3) THIRD SPHERE . . The Mystery.- Subject of the `prison' epistles only. Gentiles especially.
We do not see how it is possible to deny that there is reference, in the Scriptures, to these three spheres - unless
we confuse either the New Jerusalem with the earthly sphere, or the mystery with the New Jerusalem. As this is
impossible, if we are to keep both our faith and our reason, we believe that every unprejudiced reader must be
convinced that there is recorded in the Scriptures three spheres of blessing.
Now Scripture provides a means of testing whether its callings can be rightly subdivided into three, and this is
found in the word `adoption', and the way it is employed by the apostle in his epistles.
In order to enable the reader to appreciate the line of argument we intend to follow, let us use an illustration.
Suppose we were to point out an elderly man and say, `There goes a man who has three firstborn sons'; at first our
companion might exclaim `Impossible!', yet, on second thoughts, he might reply, `Yes, I see it is quite possible for
the man to have three firstborn sons, for he may have married three times, but he can only have them provided that
each is the firstborn of one of the three distinct families'. We hope to prove that God has three distinct companies of
the redeemed who have the dignity and privilege of being His firstborn, and that each of these three firstborn sons is
given an exalted position in one of the three spheres, the earth, the New Jerusalem, and the superheavens.
As we have said, the word which supports this argument is translated in the Authorized Version `adoption', and
our first duty will be to arrive at the scriptural meaning of the term. Except we do thus perceive the meaning of a
scriptural term, not only will it be valueless but possibly harmful, that is, if we invest it with our own conception of
its meaning Sometimes the etymology of a word establishes its meaning; often it needs an understanding of its usage
in Scripture, and, sometimes, a knowledge of the way in which the word was used in secular writings contemporary
with the Scripture concerned. This last is very true of the word `adoption'. The Greek word is huiothesia, and
means, literally, `to place a son'. No modern writer has greater firsthand knowledge of this term than Sir William
Ramsay, and in order to acquaint ourselves with its usage in Galatia, we will first of all quote from Sir William's A
Historical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians:
`The idea that they who follow the principle of faith are sons of Abraham, whatever family they belong to by
nature, would certainly be understood by the Galatians as referring to the legal process called "adoption",
huiothesia.
Adoption was a kind of embryo will: the adopted son became the owner of the property, and the property could
pass to a person that was naturally outside the family only through his being adopted. The adoption was a sort of
Will-making; and this ancient form of Will was irrevocable and public. The terms "Son" and "Heir" are
interchangeable.