Has the Grace given through Jesus replaced the Grace given through Moses?
What would do say? What does your bible say? (John 1:16)
If we are to go by some bible versions, it hasn't!
GREEK:οτι εκ του πληρωματος αυτου ημεις παντες ελαβομεν και χαριν αντι χαριτος
KING JAMES: And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
SYLVANUS: [because / and] out of his fullness we all received, and grace replaced grace
The word we are interested in here, is the word
αντι. As you can see on the list
HERE, the majority of bible translations/versions render it as either
'
for'
,'
upon' or
'
after'.
The word αντι corresponds to the
Strong's number
0473, found 17 times in the NT in this form, and 5 time as
ανθ, which is defined therein by those terms: A primary particle;
opposite, that is,
instead or
because of (rarely in addition to): - for, in the room of. Often used in composition to denote
contrast, requital, substitution, correspondence, etc.
The definition of
αντι is clear, and in
all occurrences can be translated as: '
in place of', or '
instead'. (Matt 2:22, 5:38, 17:27, 20:28, Mark 10:45, Luke 11:11, John 1:16, Rom 12:17, 1Cor 11:15, Eph 5:31, 1Th 5:15, Heb 12:2, 12:16, James 4:15, 1Ptr 3:9). (
ανθ = Luke 1:20, 12:3, 19:44, Acts 12:23, 2Th 2:10, translated as: '
because', or 'since'). So let have a look as the way it is translated otherwise:
Grace for GraceThis seems to make some sense, as in English when we say 'tit
for tat', we mean tit in response to tat, or tit instead of tat, as a Greek speaker would say. But it is quite misleading as we also say 'I'll do this
for you', meaning an action
of grace to the recipient. A translation must be clear. When Jesus died
for us, He didn't die
for us as if doing us a favour, though it was, but rather He died
instead of us. So to translate as
for, is correct, but quite ambiguous.
Grace upon Grace
Why would a translator do such a thing? If the original writer would have wanted to say Grace
upon Grace, he would have rather used
επί, as in
Matthew 24:2 'a stone
upon(επι) a stone' or
Philippians 2:27 'sorrow
upon(επι) sorrow'.
Besides, to express this idea, the second 'Grace' couldn't have been in the genitive case.
Grace after GraceThis way of translating does not seem to make sense at all. Whereas Grace
for Grace implies a
reciprocity, and Grace
upon Grace an
accumulation, Grace
after Grace implies a constant
repetition. This only seem to be an interpretative translating, and is absolutely not correct.
Grace replaced GraceTo translate Grace
in place of Grace is correct. We find this form in the New Testament also on these verses:
Matt 5:38: An eye
for(αντι) an eye
Rom 12:17: evil
for(αντι) evil
1Th 5:15: evil
for(αντι) evil
1Ptr 3:9: evil
for(αντι) evil
SO WHY THE CONFUSION?The confusion derives in the way verses are divided. This was done a long time after the writing of the New Testament, and sometimes it confuses the reader. I assert the verses 16 and 17 of chapter 1 of John should not be split.:
(
KJV)
And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace, for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.The word '
for' here (
οτι) joins the two sentences together (it's a conjunction), the second explaining the first, as in: 'I say it
that you may understand', and is mostly translated in the King James as '
because' (183/206 times).
Verse 17 explains that the law (a grace in itself) was given through Moses, and that truth (also a grace) was given through Jesus, so that there was
two dispensation of Grace, the second having replaced the first.
If you separate these two verses, the whole meaning of these disappear instantly, and the end of verse 16 does not fit anymore.(Sylvanus Bible) [because / and] out of his fullness we all received, and grace
replaced grace
because {although} the Law was given through Moses, grace and truth came to be through Jesus Christ.
