Things New and Old

Ancient truths revealed in the Scriptures are often forgotten, disbelieved or distorted, and therefore lost in the passage of time. Such ancient truths when rediscovered and relearned are 'new' additions to the treasury of ancient truths.

Christ showed many new things to the disciples, things prophesied by the prophets of old but hijacked and perverted by the elders and their traditions, but which Christ reclaimed and returned to His people.

Many things taught by the Apostles of Christ have been perverted or substituted over the centuries. Such fundamental doctrines like salvation by grace and justification have been hijacked and perverted and repudiated by sincere Christians. These doctrines need to be reclaimed and restored to God's people.

There are things both new and old here. "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things"
2Ti 2:7.

Saturday, November 22, 2025

Power to become the sons of God

 


https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/pfbid08RJXCQvfhxYu3nEjzTefge9wvjuvVBx6LsTP6Y1iLKARfYXCekimSrwJEfyzi6SUl

Consider this passage.

John 1 KJT
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

power - exousia : leave or permission, of authority (influence) and of right (privilege).

Q1: To whom did God give power to become the sons of God?
Q2: What does it mean to be given power to become sons (children) of God?
Q3. What are the THREE things stated?
Q4. What is the chronological order of the three things stated?

Do you care enough about the truth concerning your salvation to muse on the matter?

Do remember that these two:
- being given power to become sons of God (which is clearly conditional)
and,
- being born of God (which is clearly unconditional, the spiritually dead can't possibly meet any conditions)
ARE Distinct.

But so many equate the two; this prompted me to see if you have learnt the truths.
-------

Ann 
Pastor, what can you tell me of the meaning of “even” in v. 12?
There was a meaning for this word, common in scripture, that’s very different from how we use it, and I’m often a little confused

Sing
Ann, "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Two notes:
1. "even" is in the italic, indicating that it's not in the Greek text but a word supplied by the translators, as needed in English grammar.
2. In English grammar, "even" indicates a comparison; or introduces a more specific or emphatic detail.

"Even" introduces a more specific or emphatic term or phrase to clarify or strengthen a previous phrase.

"to them that believe on his name" is a more specific phrase to explicate the earlier phrase "as many as received him."

I hope this helps.

Ann
In my personal understanding of the covenant that saved His elect, "receiving him" was an alternate way to express the experience of being born again. Many children of God are not aware or not yet aware that they have been redeemed and have a savior. So, if that's right, then believing on His name would ensue from receiving him or being born again, yet this verse seems to treat those two as different and believing being a stronger experience than merely receiving Him. That's what doesn't make sense to me. Your reiteration of the meaning of "even" is our familiar usage but it interrupts the flow of the idea in the passage, rather than facilitating it - at least for me. I remember having to go back and read bible verses many times when "even" was used this way, which is why I thought it used to have some other shade of meaning.

Dan
I often ask: “If we have no choice in our birth (wherein we become sons of God), in what sense might someone choose to exercise power to BECOME a son of God?” The answer lies in “becoming a son INDEED” - literally “in deed” - in acting in accordance with the father’s will for our lives. A father whose son gets in terrible trouble by breaking the law might well say, “That’s no son of mine!” In so doing he is not denying the son’s natural, genetic lineage, but rather pointing out that the child has not acted in accordance with his upbringing and as such has not produced the evidence of his parentage by his deeds. The matter of having the power to become sons of God has respect to the visible fruit of our deeds as borne out in obedience to the father’s teaching.

Rod
🙂 Amen. To John 1:12-13.
Regarding "The question is not, what does it say; the more important question is, Do you believe what it says?" perhaps understanding comes before believing? If so, then the order would be:
* What does it say?
* What does it mean?
* Do you believe?

Acts 8:30-31 (KJV) - "And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."

Acts 8:35,37,39 (KJV) - "Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. ... And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ... And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing."

Amen.

Sing
Rod, thank you. What is the distinction between "what does it say" and "what does it mean"?

Is the former interpretation and the latter application?

Rod
🙂 In the example provided, the Ethiopian could read what was written in the Book of Isaiah, but he could not understand it. He needed someone to "guide" or explain it to him. Philip preached to him, then the eunuch "went on his way rejoicing."

The first is the ability to read. The second is to interpret and understand what has been read. The third is to believe what has been read.

I hope this helps, brother Sing.

If I sent you a letter in some foreign language, you know the alphabet, so you can read it, but without understanding. You need to translate it into a language that you understand. Then you are able to decide if you believe what was written, or not.

Sing
Rod, thanks. I need to translate it into a language I can read. but reading and understanding are two different matters; many can read eloquently without understanding what is read. So also with understanding and believing, even though understanding is necessary for believing. For example, I understand what an Arminian says - for example, a man believes in order to get life - but I refuse to believe the irrational idea.

If I know what it says, then I know what it means. Knowing what it means, I make a conscious choice to believe it or reject it.

That's the way I see the matter.