The relationship between the Law and the New Covenant (and Christ followers) continues to be a source of debate and interest. This post will by no means address this large topic, but it’s important to note when translation choices seem to import theological frameworks and presuppositions. Take for example, John 1:16-17. Here are some translations that, in my opinion, do a poor job because they import a contrasting conjunction (“but”) that simply is not in the Greek text. (And yes, ignore all of the other interpretive liberties the NLT takes for now).

• NLT: ¹⁶ From his abundance we have all received one gracious blessing after another. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses, but God’s unfailing love and faithfulness came through Jesus Christ.
• NET: ^1:16 For we have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. ^1:17 For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ.

Both of these translations take the step of adding the “but,” which again, is not in the text. If the idea is that there is a material contrast between the Law and the Gospel of Christ, then this would be warranted. But is there? If there isn’t, then the translations inappropriately mar the Law, suggesting that it is something that isn’t of grace as well. Here is the ESV which uses a semi-colon (similarly to the NIV and the NASB, among others).

• ESV: ¹⁶ For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. ¹⁷ For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

In my opinion, this is an appropriate translation as it leaves open to interpretation whether there is some semblance of contrast, or rather, whether we are talking about a grace (in Christ) coming after a former grace (in the Law). In view of my reading of v. 16, this is the interpretive move I make.

Another option, though, lies in the CSB, which I think takes the cake here:

• CSB: Indeed, we have all received grace upon grace from his fullness, for the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. — John 1:15-17

This translation more clearly connects the ideas between the two verses, and I feel that this clears up what is being talked about quite a bit. It’s just a nudge, but it’s a nudge in what I feel is the right direction. And it’s a perfectly defensible nudge, as the ὅτι (“for,” “because,” “since,” etc.) that begins v. 17 wants to give an explanation for the statement in v. 16. Reading this translation, it seems clear that the “grace upon grace” is the Gospel “upon” the Law, so to speak.

I will give “fair play” to the NET (which, for the record, I really appreciate as a translation), since they explain their translation choice in their notes and clear up the reality that the “but” is supplied:

“But” is not in the Greek text, but has been supplied to indicate the implied contrast between the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ. John 1:17 seems to indicate clearly that the Old Covenant (Sinai) was being contrasted with the New. In Jewish sources the Law was regarded as a gift from God (Josephus, Ant. 3.8.10 [3.223]; Pirqe Avot 1.1; Sifre Deut 31:4 §305). Further information can be found in T. F. Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (SBT).

 Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

It seems here that the committee was a little divided. The text itself implies a contrast, but the note explains that the Law should still be seen as “a gift,” which we might indeed call “grace.” I suppose they are simply giving credence to both translational moves, and for that I am appreciative.

Where does this leave us? It’s important to recognize that all translations make interpretive moves. Granted, some make a whole lot more than others, but there’s no such thing as a perfectly “literal” translation. (In fact, my personal view is that a little interpretive guidance within a translation is better for the average reader than more vague translations that leave open interpretive possibilities that clearly shouldn’t be there.)

The issue at stake in this example though is how Christians look at the Law, and whether they see it as bad, irrelevant, or as something that reveals sin while offering no grace. I find this to be an overly simplistic and reductionistic view of the Law. It doesn’t seem honest with the way scripture talks about itself. Christians should say with Paul, “in my inner being I delight in God’s law” (Ro 7:22, NIV). In this way, we see the Law as a grace as well.