John 1:16

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 Grace

This 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 Grace

This 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 Grace

To 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.