Steve Stewart has recently complete his PhD thesis. The following is a short summary of one chapter, “The Law of Moses in John’s Prologue: the Law As Central to a Jewish Fourth Gospel”, in which he argues for a new translation of John 1:17.
John’s Gospel is now widely recognised as deeply Jewish. Yet this recognition has not always led interpreters to expect a correspondingly high view of the law of Moses within the Fourth Gospel. In the argument summarised here, focusing on John 1:17, I challenge that imbalance. If the Fourth Gospel is meaningfully Jewish, and if first-century Jewish identity was inseparable from monotheism, election, and the law (as I argue elsewhere in my thesis), then we should not begin by assuming that John treats the law as obsolete, marginal, or superseded. We should instead ask whether John presents Jesus as the one through whom the law’s true meaning, grace, and truth come fully into view.
The present consensus of the law having for John a certain redundancy, has most commonly been arrived at through the lens of the Prologue, and particularly through John 1:17: ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.
Most English readers know the verse in some form of the supersessionist rendering: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” Older English tradition, especially the King James Version, sharpened the contrast by adding “but”: “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” That “but” has no direct equivalent in the Greek. It has nevertheless shaped centuries of Christian reading, encouraging a contrast between Moses and Christ, law and grace, and indeed “Judaism” and “Christianity”. To date, the vast majority of commentators are happy to accept antithesis between the two clauses of John 1:17, and assume this antithesis as readily as the translators.
My thesis proposes that this traditional contrast is not required by the Greek and may be misleading. A better translation, I argue, is: “Because the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth came into being through Jesus Christ.” This is not a small adjustment. It changes John 1:17 from a verse often read as contrastive into one that may be read as causal. In the causal reading for which I argue, the law given through Moses is not displaced by grace and truth in Jesus Christ. Rather, the giving of the law is the theological condition within which grace and truth come to their proper expression in Christ.
The first issue is the opening word ὅτι. It is commonly translated “for” in John 1:17, suggesting antithesis between the law/Moses and Jesus Christ. But ὅτι can also function as a subordinating conjunction meaning “because.” The thesis argues that this causal “because” meaning should be taken seriously here. Grammatically, there is no barrier to reading John 1:17 in this way. Koine Greek can begin a sentence with ὅτι used causally, and the Fourth Gospel itself uses this pattern with notable frequency. John often writes in the form, “because x is the case, y follows.” Examples include John 14:19, “because I live, you also will live,” and John 15:19, “because you do not belong to the world … therefore the world hates you.” Such usage of ὅτι is not alien to John’s style; it is characteristic of it.
This matters because John indicates contrast frequently, using words such as ἀλλά or δέ (“but”) to set one clause over against another – the one thing he does not do in John 1:17! If he had wanted John 1:17 to mean “the law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” he would have inserted ἀλλά or δέ, just as he does on on well over 100 other occasions in his Gospel. Yet the earliest and strongest Greek witnesses do not contain such an adversative particle. The rare manuscript attempt to insert a δέ appears isolated, polemical, and ultimately unsuccessful. The Greek text, as received in the main tradition, does not force an antithesis between Moses and Christ in John 1:17.
The second issue is John’s phrase in 1:16, χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος. This is often translated “grace upon grace” or, in the even more supersessionist readings, “grace instead of grace”: a new grace replacing an old grace. But I argue that the syntax points in another direction. When Greek uses the same noun on both sides of ἀντί, the sense is not necessarily replacement. It may mean like-for-like correspondence: “life for life,” “eye for eye,” “evil for evil,” just as we find famously of the Septuagint Greek of Exodus 21:23-25. In John 1:16, therefore, χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος may be better heard as “grace for grace.” That is, John is not contrasting grace with law but inviting readers to recognise grace within the law and to see that grace rightly interpreted in Jesus Christ.
This argument gains weight from the Jewish Scriptures. In Exodus, Moses receives the law in the context of divine favour, or grace. The language of “finding favour” before God is bound up with Moses’ request to know God’s ways and with the covenantal identity of Israel. In the Septuagint, the Greek term χάρις regularly translates Hebrew language of favour. Grace, then, is not a late Christian replacement for Torah. In Israel’s Scriptures, divine favour is already bound to God’s revelation, God’s ways, and the covenant life of the people. John’s “grace and truth” therefore need not be read as the opposite of Moses’ law. They may be the law’s deepest intention brought into being through Jesus Christ.
The third issue is John’s verb ἐγένετο, which John uses on six occasions in his prologue (1:1-18). Many translations render it simply as “came.” But throughout the Prologue, ἐγένετο carries the sense of came into being: all things came into being through the Word; life came into being in him; the Word became flesh. In John 1:17, then, “grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ” may be closer to the theological resonance of the text than the flatter “came.” This does not mean that grace and truth did not exist until Jesus’ earthly ministry, as if God had not been gracious or true before. Rather, John presents Jesus Christ as the one through whom the meaning, origin, and embodiment of grace and truth are disclosed. As with creation and life, their source is not Moses but the divine Word.
On this reading, John 1:17 does not demote Moses. It places Moses within the larger economy of divine revelation. The law was indeed given through Moses. That passive verb, “was given,” honours the divine origin of the law. Moses is not the law’s creator; he is its commissioned mediator. Likewise, Jesus is not merely a messenger of grace and truth. Through him, grace and truth come into being in their decisive, embodied, revelatory form. The verse is therefore not Moses versus Jesus, nor law versus grace. It is Moses as witness and mediator within a story whose source and goal are disclosed in Jesus Christ. Anything less than this would leave us with a very “un-Jewish” Gospel.
This has major implications for reading the whole Gospel. If John 1:17 is antithetical, the reader is primed to see Jesus as replacing the law. The Sabbath controversies, temple scenes, purification imagery, festivals, and disputes with “the Jews” may then be read as evidence that Jesus abolishes or supersedes Jewish law.
But if John 1:17 is causal, the reader is invited to ask a different question: not “How does Jesus free us from the law?” but “How does Jesus, being the law’s ultimate author and keeper par excellence, reveal the law’s true meaning?” The Fourth Gospel then becomes not a rejection of Jewish law but an intra-Jewish argument over its interpretation in the light of the Christ event.
That shift is pastorally and theologically significant. In so many sermons, we are used to hearing law and grace contrasted, often with the law associated with burden, judgement, and failure, and grace with freedom, mercy, and Christ. John in his Gospel may be asking whether the law has been misunderstood by those who claim Moses while failing to recognise the one about whom Moses wrote. In John 5, Jesus does not accuse his opponents of caring too much about Moses; he says that if they truly believed Moses, they would believe him. Moses is not the problem. Misreading Moses is the problem.
My proposed translation also resists anachronism. It cautions against imagining first-century Jews could simply discard Torah as one might abandon a philosophical system. For Jews of John’s world, the law was not an optional ideology. It was bound to election, covenant, worship, identity, and the story of God’s dealings with Israel. If John is Jewish in any serious sense, we should expect him to think from within that world. A Gospel that reveres monotheism while casually abandoning Torah would be historically odd. A Gospel that presents Jesus as the true interpreter and embodiment of Torah’s grace and truth is far more plausible.
There is also a christological gain. The proposed translation does not lessen Christ; it heightens him. Jesus is not great because he renders Moses redundant. He is great because the divine grace and truth already witnessed in the law come into being through him in their fullest personal reality. The Word who was with God and was God, through whom all things came into being, is also the one through whom the law’s deepest grace and truth are disclosed. John’s high Christology is therefore not anti-Torah. It is the revelation of Torah’s divine depth.
For preaching and teaching, this means John 1:17 should be handled with care. The familiar “law versus grace” contrast can too easily collapse into a caricature of Judaism and a distorted account of the Gospel. John’s Prologue may instead be inviting the Church to see continuity without flattening difference. The law is given; grace and truth come into being through Jesus Christ. Moses mediates; Christ embodies. The law witnesses; Christ reveals. The Gospel is not that God once gave law and later replaced it with grace. The Gospel is that the God who gave the law through Moses has now made known, in the flesh of the Word, the grace and truth to which the law always pointed.
My proposed rendering of John 1:17, “Because the law was given through Moses, the grace and the truth came into being through Jesus Christ,” therefore offers more than a grammatical refinement. It reframes the theological imagination with which we read John. It asks us to begin not with rupture but with fulfilment understood as faithful interpretation of the law, not its abolition. It encourages us to preach John as a Jewish Gospel in which Jesus as the incarnate Word of God does not – and would not – stand over against the law but instead reveals its gracious and truthful heart. In that sense, John 1:17 may be less a farewell to Moses a more an invitation to read Moses again, now in the light of the Word made flesh.
Revd Dr Steve Stewart, PhD is Rector of the Church of England Benefice of Hanborough and Freeland in Oxfordshire and tutors in both New Testament and Preaching at St Martha’s College, Guildford. He has been married to his amazing wife Amanda since 1993, and they have three daughters—two still with us, and one with the Lord.
Buy me a Coffee
Is this positive take similar to Paul in Gal 3:24 where the law is a tutor to guide to Christ, not simply condemning but pointing to what is right?
I think my reading of John 1:17, and the Gospel of John in general, points indeed to a (possibly surprising) continuity between Paul’s thought and that of the author of the Fourth Gospel.
I’d like to read Steve’s take on Gal 3:24-25, though I appreciate this passage is neither the focus of this post nor likely a major consideration of his thesis. (I tried to find Steve’s thesis online, but it seems only a repository hard copy exists for public access.) I suspect much depends on how one translates the eis of Gal 3:24.
Many thanks, Terry, for your response. Yes, although I refer to Paul’s take on the law on couple of occasions in my thesis, it is far from the focus of my thesis. Nonetheless, what I think is worth noting is that we find in Galatians that Paul’s moral statements are fully in accord with his Jewish background. For example, when Paul cites in chapter 5 those things which are contrary to the spirit and contrasts those things with what is contrary to the flesh, his list is entirely Jewish, even polemically so. That is, Paul’s view of the law as a paidagōgos is in line with what an ancient paidagōgos would have done: the paidagōgos schools the student, and indeed his role was limited, but that which the paidagōgos taught is still the behavioral framework which is expected to be lived out in adulthood. So too with the law: I think that both Paul and John expect the law to be kept, but in the manner of Christ.
What do you mean expect the law to be kept? Do you mean Jews who recognised Jesus as Messiah continued to keep every aspect of the law?
Thank you for the questions, Peter. I mean nothing more than what I say: John, in his presentation of Jesus, expects the law to be kept by those who believe in Jesus Christ. Exactly what that keeping of the law looks like, in imitation of Christ Jesus, is for another’s thesis! But my research leaves me in no doubt that the law – in all its fullness (whatever that means!) – is to be kept.
Thanks, Steve. I appreciate your willingness to respond to something on Galatians rather than John! I can see Paul and John both have a similar view of the law, that the law should still be kept ‘in the manner of Christ’ (as you put it, and whatever that means in practice!) – but I’m not sure how what seems to be the intentionally temporary nature of the law in Gal 3:24-25 (and esp. Gal 3:25) squares with this. There are parts of the NT that suggest more strongly the law’s abrogation than others (e.g., Galatians, Hebrews), even though these letters maintain the law’s goodness.
(The reason I’m curious about the John/Galatians connection here is because I looked at these passages in a little detail – more Galatians than John – twenty years or so ago when I was a student, and your blog post is kindling that particular flame.)
Thank you, Terry. It’s exciting and rewarding to hear that my research is kindling an old interest in Paul/Galatians/John! May I just suggest a thought or two: in John’s Gospel, the author is explicit that the law should have led Jesus’ detractors to see him as the Christ (e.g., 5:45-47). If that was true then, then in what possible way would the law now no longer lead us to Christ? Any kind of functional Marcionism would be anathema to John. For Paul in turn, I would say that his description of pedagogy regarding the law does not for a moment imply its redundancy. Christ has not saved us from the law, but from slavery to the law. In Paul’s theology, and I would argue both in Galatians and in Romans, asserts that the Holy Spirit given to believers in Jesus now empowers the believer to both rejoice in the law as the word of God and to keep it in the way it was always intended to be kept from the day Moses came down from the mountain top!
Thanks, Steve. I’m not sure where this post will appear in the thread, as there was no ‘reply’ button on your latest response! If that happens, then my comments here relate to your comment posted on July 23, 2026 at 1:21 pm.
I get the point about no longer being enslaved to the law because of Jesus. But I’d like to work through the paidagōgos metaphor further on the basis of what you said above (below?!). Paul appears to liken being under the instruction of the paidagōgos as a form of imprisonment or restriction: the law-as-paidagōgos is the framework within which a Jewish person grows to reflect and, indeed, embody the godly content of the law. And so, as a Jewish man, Jesus himself lived under the same paidagōgos (Gal 4:4-5) and under the same form of ‘imprisonment’ as his peers. If a paidagōgos generally, in the Greco-Roman world, was commanded by the paterfamilias to instruct a person until that person matures to the point where the latter capably reflects and embodies the wishes and character of the paterfamilias; and because Jesus matured (cf. Luke 1:80; 2:40, 52; Heb 2:10, 17; 5:8; there are probably others) under the law-as-paidagōgos, and because of his particular mission as the incarnate Son; then it seems to me – at the moment, anyway! – that Paul’s point is that Jesus’s coming to maturity means, for Jesus, the paidagōgos is no longer necessary, and that because of the Spirit’s incorporation of Christian believers, Jew and Gentile, into him (i.e., into Jesus), then the law itself no longer functions specifically as a paidagōgos. The risen Christ frees believers from the ‘imprisonment’ of the law (I keep using quotation marks for ‘imprisonment’ because I’m not sure why being under the tutelage of a paidagōgos should be regarded as ‘imprisonment’ unless ‘imprisonment’ itself is a metaphor; anyway . . .) because the Spirit incorporates them into Jesus, and in doing so, makes them children of God the Father through adoption in Jesus. If there’s still any need for Christian believers, Jew or Gentile, to stay under the paidagōgos and so keep the law, then it has to be kept ‘in Christ’ – otherwise being ‘under’ the paidagōgos remains enslavement; but my gut feeling is that, on the basis of Gal 3:25, believers are not under the paidagōgos because in Christ, they are already mature and so no longer need the paidagōgos. There’s a strong eschatological, now-and-not-yet component to this, of course.
Not sure how much of that makes sense, and I’m not sure it contradicts or confirms anything you’ve said about John 1:17, but I’m enjoying the unexpected opportunity to reflect on these things! Thank you.
I have recently mulled this idea: Jesus was like a Greek athlete. He demonstrated that the cycle of Olympic Games was over by winning every event. Athleticism still has virtue but competition is no longer a goal. The ultimate prize has been won.
But I can put this idea to rest as your argument is very persuasive.
Many thanks for your positive response. See also my reply to Terry Wright above.
Amen. I have long disliked the antithetical reading, and I inclined towards Don Carson’s “grace after grace” interpretation. But this is really good. Thanks for sharing.
Many thanks indeed, Robin.
Delighted to read this and it goes to show how easy it is to let our theological presuppositions affect our interpretation of Scripture and allow later history to interpret early history. Indeed, from the 4th century onwards we find that it is Greek philosophy which has guided and shaped our interpretation.
Thank you, John. Yes, there certainly seems to be anachronism at work in the translations which the Church has received. And not only in English, but also in other languages including German.
This is an interesting study.
Of course, the Mosaic covenant was gracious in that it was unconditional — entry into it was by birth. But this does not contradict a supersessionist view?
The Mosaic covenant had no saving purpose in and of itself ? As Jesus points out in John 8:44 you can be fully members of that covenant and yet be the ‘seed of the serpent’ of Genesis 3:15.
Furthermore, much of Galatians and the whole of Hebrews seem dedicated to pointing out that the Mosaic covenant is ‘obsolete’ and the new covenant really is ‘new ‘and ‘not like’ the Mosaic covenant — and I would argue that the fundamental difference is the Mosaic covenant was based on the consanguineous union but the new covenant is based on the affinity union — the summation of Paul’s argument in Ephesians found in Eph 5:31–32 and reinforced elsewhere e.g. Romans 9:8, ‘In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.’
It is difficult to see that one covenant is continuous with or a renewal of the other when they have fundamentally different basis? As Claude AI points out, in the Hagar/Sarah allegory (Galatians 4:21–31) — Sinai is mapped onto the slave woman, the Jerusalem-above/promise people onto Sarah and is, ‘Paul’s strongest argument that these are genuinely two different covenantal logics.’
In answer to the question ‘How Does Jesus Fulfil the Law?’ — Don Carson answers this in his usual brilliant style in a YouTube video.
Colin, can you give a link to the Don Carson video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSWPqiUIZBo
Thank you very much indeed for your reflections, Colin. My thesis essentially addresses the question that if we are to call the Fourth Gospel a “Jewish” Gospel, then must by definition have a positive view of and ongoing role for the law. This is based on my assertion that a positive view of and ongoing role for the law is as much a pillar of Second Temple Judaism as Jewish monotheism. I therefore explore first whether it is possible to find within Second Temple Judaism a form of Judaism which ignores or abrogates the law of Moses. I conclude that there is not. Therefore our assumption of a “Jewish” Gospel must be that it has a positive view of and ongoing role for the law. In the second half of my study, I test this to see if the text of John itself presents a positive view of and ongoing role for the law, concluding that it does. It is beyond the scope of my thesis to explore precisely what “keeping the law in the manner of Jesus Christ” looks like. That is for another’s PhD! Nonetheless, I would say this: if we are to assert – as we do as believers in Jesus Christ – that he fulfils the law by keeping it (which I assert John most certainly presents Jesus as doing), then if we are to be imitators of Christ we must have in some meaningful way also keep the law. And not the law are divided up into parts (ethical, cultic, et cetera) but in all its fullness – whatever that may look like.
I’m in the process of looking to get my thesis published.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your response.
As you will know Don Carson would describe himself as a new covenant theologian and I am inclined to that view myself — and thus would consider myself to be under Paul’s ‘law of Christ’ (Gal 6:2) — but his explanation in 1 Cor 9:21 probably needs more unpacking:
‘To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.’
I hope you find a publisher soon. It sounds as though your study stays broadly within the Reformed tradition, so I think your scope is fairly wide.
Thank you, Colin. I would point you to my replies to Terry Wright above. I would see no gulf between what I am proposing and the Reformed tradition. Nonetheless, my research is not polemical or anachronistic in the sense of aiming to see some kind of affirmation of a later tradition in an earlier text (in this case, the Fourth Gospel). As far as is possible, my research was simply an extended survey and exegesis of John and its Second Temple Judaism context, with the result being simply what I discovered.
Very interesting. I am convinced. Thank you.
Many thanks indeed, Chris.
It would be interesting to see more of this dissertation, specifically:
1. grammatically: how John uses hoti- conjunction expressions (e.g. John 20.29; John 20.13; John 6.26 – I counted about 57 examples of the conjunction and 7 or 8 of the preposition dia)
2. thematically: how the Moses-Jesus relationship (or the relationship between Jesus and the Law) is explored in John.
Does Steve describe this in his dissertation?
Parallel to this is the question of how Paul and John describe Christology, specifically the pre-existence and divinity of Christ. I have long believed that Paul and John are really very similar in their thinking, and to Paul and John we can add Ring- I mean, Hebrews, The idea that James Dunn promoted years ago (in ‘Christology in the Making’) that Paul didn’t believe in the pre-existence of Jesus was way off-beam. There are different witnesses but a basic harmony of belief in NT theology.
Thank you very much indeed, James. I examine in considerable detail (some 37,000 words) the use of hoti and other conjunctions throughout John. I’m in the process of seeking to get my PhD published, but if you would like to see a hardcopy, one can be found on the bookshelves of Oak Hill Theological College.
Throughout my research, I have become increasingly convinced that there is enormous continuity between John’s and Paul’s view of the law and their Christology.
Thank you, Steve. I think it’s the practice now for doctoral dissertations to be available online from the degree awarding university- I have read a few dissertations that way. Was your doctorate awarded by Middlesex University?
Every blessing with the publication. Have you tried Sheffield Academic Press? That has been a useful route in the past for PhDs in Biblical Studies.
It would be great to see an academic defence of the continuity between John and Paul in Law and Christology. Perhaps this is something you may write about? I am sure the Tyndale Fellowship would be interested in such a topic.
On a personal note, I have long been interested in the Jewishness of John, I recently started reading the New Testament in Hebrew, using Franz Delitzsch’s 19th century translation which was commissioned for Jewish evangelism, before Hebrew had been revived in Ottoman Palestine by Ben-Yehuda. The book is easy and cheap to obtain. As one who spends most of his time in the Hebrew Bible, I was delighted to read this translation which resonates everywhere with the language of the HB. I am going to start on John soon and look forward to hearing some of these Semitic echoes. The Greek of John is accurate but not difficult, and I have sometimes wondered if this points to a competent second language user.
Thank you, James – and for your notes about possible publication. Most helpful. My doctorate is a Lambeth PhD, with my external examiners being Mark Goodacre and Paulus de Jong.
I would indeed hope that my thesis was something of a steppingstone or prompt for precisely the study you indicate: continuity between John and Paul in Law and Christology. It has been fascinating throughout my research to see that whenever I have described my findings regarding the FG and the law, people go immediately to wanting to discuss the relationship between this and Paul’s view of the law. Not surprising of course, but there is clearly space for such a study to be undertaken, perhaps by another.
Thank you for your notes on Franz Delitzsch’s Hebrew translation. In reading this, you will find enormous resonances with John’s Gospel. My research of course is concerned with John as it has been received in Greek, and in turn the linguistic resonances of the FG with the LXX.
Hi Steve, did you find Margaret Sim’s discussion in _Marking Thought and Talk in New Testament Greek_ (Pickwick 2010) about HOTI? It would seem to support your argument from a linguistic approach to HINA and HOTI.
Indeed, Bruce. I quite agree that what Margaret Sims says (esp. pp152ff) supports my argument. She also notes the notable frequency with which John employs hoti. Her remark that, ‘By the time of Koine, however, ‘all other causal particles are insignificant beside hoti which grew steadily in use’. At the heart of this use is the implied thought of the subject which is presented as his understanding of a real state of affairs. At first consideration it may seem as if this use is not so much factual as potential, or putative, but the essential issue is that the writer is presenting a thought as his belief that it is an actual state of affairs’ is not insignificant.
Don Carson: How does Jesus fulfill the law?
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/podcasts/tgc-podcast/how-jesus-fulfill-law/
Thank you, Geoff.
Thanks Steve. And thanks for your article ( brief comment below).
The credit goes to Colin Hamer above. I was not aware of Don Carson’s talk, but searched it out and listened to it.
Carson has such a depth and spread of scholarship, but I am with the person who asked the question, do you have a book on the subject as he passed over so much.
I am like Jock not having Greek, (not Hebrew) but your study honed in on what written, not what isn’t there.
Yes there are questions of continuity and discontinuity between the old and new covenants, but in the context of John the simple distinction is between the person of Moses and the Person of Jesus, who they are in the biblical redemptive history. Jesus is the greater Moses as he is the greater son of David. His incarnation is the continuity and discontinuing.
I was not raised as an adult convert in the three fold division of the law, (which was post deliverance and gracious) and have found Carson’s explanation for the continuation of moral law in Jesus, persuasive.
I have been unable to separate Paul from the Gospels as a lay person (maybe there is a need to be a certain stripe of scholar to do so).
There is some scholarship that clears away the morning mists of biblical misunderstanding and other scholarship that can cause a fog of confusion.
It seems to me that your article is in the former category Thanks, as it has stimulated some lethargic thinking and perhaps a higher Christology.
Thank you, Geoff. Likewise, I found Carson’s video interesting and helpful. In terms of the law and its role for those who are now believers, could I point you to my comments above, in particular those to Terry Wright. I think the threefold division of the law is anachronistic and was always unhelpful. Indeed, the idea that the law could be split, say, into ethical and cultic material would not be recognisable by Second Temple Jews. Neither does it map in any way onto the actual text of the Torah, which constantly and seamlessly shifts between these apparent distinctives, not least in the Decalogue itself! This is something I cover at length in my thesis.
The piece is very interesting, although as someone who doesn’t read ancient Greek the discussion about translation went over my head.
It presents the perspective that I had always had on John 1:17 and I’d agree with those who bring in Galatians 3:24, which is clearly John’s perspective on The Law. Whenever I heard the gospel of John dealt with (in sermons I heard from James Philip back in the 1980’s), this was the perspective; John 14:15 ‘If you love me you will keep my commandments’, also John 14:21,23. Love of Christ is a moral issue. The law was given as an act of grace and mercy, but it is only through Him that we can obey the law (so the ‘but’ in the KJV might not be so wrong). In short, the Law was given by Moses (as an act of grace and mercy); the grace and truth through which we enables us to uphold the law comes through Christ Jesus.
Many thanks indeed for your thoughts, Jock, which are much appreciated. Regarding the relationship between John’s thinking on the law and Paul’s (which I would want to argue is consistent to the point of being seamless), could I point you to my comments above, in particular my responses to Terry Wright.
Thankyou Dr. Steve, Copious refreshment for a running man.
For me St. John hears not only the words of Jesus but more so hears the “voice” of Jesus, the “mystic relationship”.
Much like the disciples heading for Emaus they like their orthodox religious leaders knew the prophets as a large part of their history but knew not the “voice of the prophets”
Jesus explained the voice of the prophets and their hearts caught Fire.
They didn’t “see Jesus” but they sure heard the voice of the prophets; most of the disciples hadn’t heard the “Voice” of Jesus prior to the Cross and so scattered.
After Pentecost they amplified the voice.
Recently I read a most interesting paper “discussion” on the writings of John being a major source for the synoptic writers.
It makes sense in that John was closer than a shirt from the beginning to last breath of Christ.
Intimacy with Jesus seems to be the continuing motif of
The apostolic doctrine of hearing the voice of the Spirit.
Those seeking the “mind “of The Spirit and Christ need to have a deeper more intimate relationship with Christ, His “voice” will become clearer by the day.
As one said “the letter kills but the Spirit is Life. Shalom.
Many thanks for your reflections, Alan. Not directly connected to my thesis but your reflection regarding an extraordinary closeness between John and Jesus is a standout feature of the Fourth Gospel. Classically, this has been expressed as John being the “omniscient author”, confiding in the reader.
Steve Stewart’s essay has much to commend it ,particularly its focus on the Jewish roots of John’s Gospel. However, when he writes: “Grace then, is not a late Christian replacement for the Torah” — and then shortly afterwards —“John’s ‘grace and truth’ therefore need not be read as the opposite of Moses’law.” It would appear here that Torah and Moses’ law are being treated as synonymous. Yet I don’t believe this is the intention. So much of what Steve writes transcends the fallacious tendency of seeing the Sinai Covenant as findamentally obedience based. ‘Torah’ enbraces a variety of topics that cannot be encapsulated in obeisance language. Furthermore the 10 Commandments are preceded by (a) the affirmation “I am the Lord your God” and secondly by the redemption theme “who brought you out of the land or Egypt ,out of the house of bondage.” This is the language of redemption, of sacrifice and of restoration! and I believe that John 1: 127 employs ‘law- in a similar vein. In Jesus as in Moses, ‘gospel’ precedes ‘law’. Finally, whilst I affirm the central position of the New Covenant , I cannot share Colin Hamer’s somewhat dismissive assessment of the Sinai Covenant. In order to undermine the Judaizers, we are reminded that Jesus Christ was sent forth as God’s Son- “born under the law (Mosaic)”, “born of woman ( ethnically Jewish)” to *redeem*those ‘under the law’ so that we* might receive adoption as sons[Galatians 4:4-5].”
* Finally, I am, I confess one of those who happen to believe there is much more to Romans 9-11 than chapter 9: 8!
Colin,
As you point out : Jesus Christ was sent forth as God’s Son- “born under the law (Mosaic)”, “born of woman ( ethnically Jewish)” to *redeem*those ‘under the law’ so that we* might receive adoption as sons[Galatians 4:4-5].”
Surely here Paul is saying that Jesus came to extract them (I.e. Jews) – to redeem them – FROM the Mosaic covenant so that ‘they may be adopted as sons’ – i.e. Paul is driving home the fact that their (and his, Phil 3:1-5, ‘flesh’ in v.3 = family) blood union with Abraham counted for nothing soteriologically – for that they had to come to God through Christ via a different new covenant that was ‘not like’ the Mosaic covenant, not based on a blood union – a covenant written on the heart that offered a new relationship via Christ. Gentiles did not need redeeming from the Mosaic covenant. They were never in it. This, if I dare be so bold, is the fundamental mistake made by Presbyterians and embraced by some, but not all, Anglicans.
Hi Colin,
Within Reformed sensibilities the Deuteronomy 32:8–9 allocation ‘of the sons of God’ to the nations (you will probably know of the corruption of the Masoretic Text on this) is often side stepped — but it is where God takes Israel to himself to demonstrate how a nation should be governed. And I suggest this is the basis for Sinai — and nothing to do with the gospel.
And thus, Paul says:
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. (Gal 3:15–18)
No one yet has successfully explained to me how this does not mean what it says? Which is surely that the Abrahamic promise is still open. So, I choose to go via that Abrahamic promise via his seed Jesus Christ and embrace the gospel offer. And not via the Mosaic covenant which Paul in his ‘allegory’ in the next chapter compares to Hagar — who was indeed in the bloodline of Abraham but not in the promised line.
Dear Colin H (1) My initial comment was primarily addressed to the issue raised by Steve S re the meaning of law as he sees it in John 1:17.
(2) The remarks addressed to you were with reference were to your musings in your first response apropos Steve’s article : references to supercessionism, Romans 9:8 and more generally to the Mosaic Covenant.
(3)You will notice when I spoke of Moses and law , both terms were actually enclosed in quotation marks! Of course, its “nothing to go with the gospel” .
I am a passionate believer that The New Covenant, based on the “Christ Event”, is the foundational basis of salvation ‘to the Jew first and also to the Greek.” I do believe also
in the assertion in the letter to the Hebrews of the obsolesence of the M.C. ; but without the ‘replacement’ assurance! (I have strong misgivings about its attempts to ‘explain’ Hebrews 8:8! (5) Returning to Galatians: The reason I quoted the section on Jesus was that it affirms for me that the reference to law in 3:24 (” so then the law was our guardian [Schoolmaster?] until Christ came in order that we might be justified by faith” ) was not so much to the law per se but to the Mosaic Covenant as a whole – the covenant that underscored Jesus’ life and beliefs and the covenant which the Judaizers wanted to defend to the hilt and at almost any cost (witness 6:120).
Finally, the point of this particular exercise is to examine the meaning of law in the light of John’s Gospel as being “deeply Jewish” (Steve S) and in the light of what he (Steve)said shortly afterwards:” We should not begin by assuming that John treats the law as obsolete, marginal and superseded.” Later he goes on to say “for preaching and teaching, this means that John 1:17 should be handled with care. The familiar ‘law v grace’ contrast can all too easily collapse into a caricture of Judaism.”
In that light and having been party earlier to a particular quotation : (Romans 9: 8), I would draw your attention to another quotation from the same letter and chapter (Romans 9: 4&5) (however this quote is often noted for its absence in certain debates; not to mention Romans 11:1&2) : “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, *the covenants, the giving of the law*, the worship, the promises, —the patriarchs, *and from their race* according to the flesh, *is the Christ* who is God over all blessed for ever. Amen
Hi Colin,
I do know those Romans 9 verses quite well.
And we also both know that all those blessings came via Israel. But in Rom 9:6 immediately after your citation Paul says ‘but it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.’
Clearly implying that God’s wider promises did not belong to ethnic Israel. And in the next verse he explains again about the descent from Abraham making the point I have made above.
I would suggest you will not find a single verse in the OT or NT that suggests that a future in the new heavens and earth comes via the mosaic covenant.
I thought my input made it abundantly clear Colin that the New Covenant is the way forward – for Jew and Gentile or more specifically through the “key player” – Jesus the Messiah.The reference I made to Romans 9:3f is, among other things, to point out that behind the whole theological/historical saga lies the authority and power of the triune God.
Unfortunately I get the impression that what you seem to be communicating is since’plan A’ (Moasic Covenant)is obsolete; the ‘real’ scheme of salvation is now in operation. And moreover for some, that plan requires the rejection of the concept of ethnic Israel in the grand scheme of things in order to be replaced by “spirital” Israel or whatever figure of speech you care to choose ( “allegorical” Israel?) . I repeat overtly this time: Are Paul’s heart -felt tears over his own people totalylly misplaced? Is his thinking warped when he reminds Gentile Christians that they have been grafted into the New Covenant and that their arrogance regarding their standing before God could result in judgement (“For if God did not spare the natural branches (unbelieving Israel), he will not spare you either” [ Romans 11:17 – 21] And was he (Paul) living in an illusory world when he declares: ” I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendent of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. [Romans 11: 1&2].”
Colin,
Online communications like this are always second best. And the danger is we talk at cross purposes.
The mosaic covenant was never Plan A – or B or C. It was never a plan by which people would be saved. It was to demonstrate to the members of the Divine Council members of the unseen realm that they could not rule the nations effectively – that God would choose his own nation and show them how to do it. It was never about an eternal presence in the new heavens and earth,
In our communications you have not referred back to what I believe is the key to understanding the Sinai covenant i.e. Deuteronomy 32:8–9.
So – did God reject his own people? No! They rejected him! This is the repeated testimony of Scripture,
It is great, Colins, to see my article spawning such interesting engagement. Thank you, Colin MacCormack and Colin Hamer for all of your contributions which I have enjoyed reading.
I’ll press the point that the main difference and distinction is this passage, from the prologue of John is between the persons of Moses and Jesus and marshall citations from a commentary in support.
1. John 1:11–17 “appears to have been carefully crafted with a chiastic structure.”
2. “The comparison is between Moses not seeing the glory of God, but now the glory of God is seen in the perso presence of God’s incarnation in Jesus; the One and Only who came from the Father…
3.” What was proc claimed to Moses as the glory of God the Lord as he passed by, … ‘love and faithfulness’ has now been seen embodied in the incarnate Word by eyewitnesses”
4.” ‘grace’ is found in only three places in John, all in the prologue, and all of them in the description of the Word be coming flesh ”
5. ” Central to the glory of God revealed in the incarnate Word is his grace… as John unfolds this grace is seen again and again, healing, feeding. wine, restoration from death to life, deliverance through laying down life to give eternal life, sending Holy Spirit.
6. ” Truth has a root meaning of reliability. God is reliable in word and action. ”
7. “Monogenes- Jesus is the One and Only.. John 1:14 a word used in three places in John in relation to Jesus as God’s Son, and in John1:18 ‘who has seen God, but God the One and Only who is at the Father’s side has made him known.”
8. The Word makes the Father known: John1:16-18.
9. “Grace is not only seen but is received; ‘From the fulness of his grace, we have received one blessing after another’s John 1:17
10. John 1:17 reads : ” For the law was given through Moses: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (Geoff comment – that is it came in the Person of Jesus. God’s incarnate So, revealing the Father as witnessed in Old testament recapitulations through wine, bread, feeding, raising from the dead, his death, eternal life) … which is “far surpassing the blessing of the law given through Moses”.
11. “Where Moses and Jesus are compared, the revelation of God that came through Jesus far surpassed the revelation that came through Moses, precisely because Moses did not see God- only Jesus has seen God and is therefore able to make him known…
12. ” due to his unique status, who came from the Father to make him known… through his person, words and works.”
Abstracted from JOHN by Colin G. Kruse, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries
On the other hand Context is essential.
See Peter Krol’s https://www.knowableword.com/2018/06/08/context-matters-moses-shining-face/
Don’t understand. What is your point please?
The context here is the prologue as developed and expanded, corroborated, in the whole book of John. In the person of Jesus, the presence of God tabernacled amongst them.
And if we want to move out of John, consider the transfiguration of Jesus. It is all of one piece, the whole Bible ‘trajectories ‘ (Carson) culminating, cohering, consolidating, in the person of Jesus, God incarnate.
Geoff – well, Colin Hamer and Colin Cormack seem to know what they are talking about – but, like you, it’s over ma heid.
Hello Jock,
There were two covenants which God made with Abraham and I don’t see that in the discussions between the Colins.
In one God made a unilateral covenant, passing between the dead bisected criters and that is the covenant when Abraham was well ‘out of it’ and took no part, that God made good on the cross of Christ, and that is the covenant that Paul refers to in Galatians.
So are the covenants conditional or unconditional/unilateral? Yes. Both/and. They were fulfilled in the Person of Jesus as fully man ( a descendant of Abraham) and fully God in the new covenant of the cross.
My sources are, The Theology of Encouragement, by the late Michael Eaton ( which is not to hand to quote from) and Galatians for You by the late Tim Keller.
As a slight aside, bearing in mind the person of God, I don’t agree with Colin Hamer’s beliefs that there was no ‘fall’ and that God has divorced Israel.
But I’m not with Colin Mc in his view of end times return of Jesus and Israel, and his opposition to Ian Paul’s position (and others) in that regard.
I don’t see that the covenants are the main topic in the scripture under consideration of the article even though they are relevant in the theology of ‘fulfilment’ by and in Jesus the Christ.
It is great, Colin, Colin, Geoff and Jock, to see my article spawning such interesting engagement. Thank you for all of your contributions which I have enjoyed reading.
I don’t disagree. However I find Krol more cogent and accessible .
I do not think that John is contrasting law and grace. Like Christ he enhances
it , as in the Sermon on the Mount. Shalom.
Accessible? What is that in the context, Alan, of the book of John.
Surely Kruse is clear and understandable.
But it appears that you disagree with a personal preference, introduced with, ‘on the other hand’ implying a general, yet unspecific disagreement. It is a link which appears to be irrelevant (not logically probative to the fact in issue, that is, the burden of Kruse’s commentary).
The book of John corroborates the reality of the life of Jesus of history: God incarnate, in space, place and time, underpinned by whole canon scriptural and theological heft.
Yours in Christ, Geoff
I will like my Olympic analogy. If a Greek could win every event and then go on to win every argument, wouldn’t the Greeks have declared him Zeus? Jesus did the same with the Law. It wasn’t hard. He didn’t sweat it. He lived it out. We now live in his victory instead of training and competing we run alongside cheering .
Stewart’s proposal is certainly grammatically possible, but it is ultimately unpersuasive. The absence of an adversative particle such as ἀλλά does not rule out contrast, since Greek frequently expresses contrast simply through juxtaposition. Moreover, his causal translation (“Because the law was given through Moses…”) produces a relationship that is far less natural than the traditional reading, requiring readers to infer a complex theological connection that the sentence itself does not explain. It also sits awkwardly within the flow of the Prologue, where verse 17 most naturally explains the “grace upon grace” of verse 16 by contrasting the distinct roles of Moses and Christ. Finally, the argument tends to assume that any contrast between Moses and Christ must entail supersessionism or a negative view of the law, but that is a false dilemma. One may affirm both the goodness of the Mosaic law and the climactic, unsurpassed revelation of God’s grace and truth in Jesus Christ. Stewart therefore raises valuable cautions against anti-Jewish readings of John, but the grammatical and contextual evidence falls well short of requiring his proposed translation.
Dear Bob,
I dont share your criticism that Steve Stewart’s amendment would “require readers to infer a complex theological connection.” I have in my possession a commentary which employs the very same clause: “Because the law was given through Moses —- (the remainder of the quotation is in a similar vein.
He continues thus beyond this : “verse 17 is best understood as an explanation of grace instead of grace. Its contrast between Moses and Jesus Christ and between *law* and *grace* and *truth*should not be interpreted so precisely as to obscure the fact that all God’s dealings with his people are gracious!”The gift of the law was an act of divine grace , though less so than the grace through Jesus Christ.”
I pose the question therefore: what is the nature of “law” expounded in John 1:17?
Thank you both Colin MacCormack and Bob Houten for your contributions – and Bob for your challenge. Of course my argument for this translation of John 1:17 in my thesis goes way beyond that in this short article, which is more of a taster of my argument within a much broader context of approaching the Fourth Gospel as the Jewish work which the current near-consensus of scholarship asserts that it is.
I agree with Bob’s contention that “Greek frequently expresses contrast simply through juxtaposition”. This is quite apparent not least in the antithetic parallelisms which we find in the Septuagint Psalms for example. In my thesis, I make my grammatical case within the much wider context of the FG as a product of Second Temple Judaism, and the whole thrust of the text of the FG itself, for John 1:17 being better read as a case of synthetic parallelism.
Oddly, my comments were not approved. I wonder why? No critique allowed? Sheesh.
No, because I am not awake at 1.40 am in the morning when you posted it.
So feel free to drop the paranoia…!
Dear Colin,
I agree with your first sentence. Any further correspondence on your subsequent material would require bags of space and time.
Best wishes,
CMcC