John 1:17

 

An Exegetical Analysis of Hendiadys in John 1:17: The Case of ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια

The interpretation of John 1:17 presents a nuanced exegetical challenge, particularly concerning the phrase ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια (“the grace and the truth”). The verse explicitly contrasts the Law given through Moses with grace and truth coming through Jesus Christ: “For the Law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” A central question arises as to whether ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια should be understood as a hendiadys, meaning “the true grace,” thereby presenting a single, unified concept, or if the two nouns retain their distinct meanings while being presented in close conjunction. This analysis will explore the grammatical, lexical, and rhetorical arguments surrounding this interpretive choice, considering both Greek syntactical norms and potential Hebrew background.

ὅτι ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο.

Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):

• There are no significant textual differences between the Nestle 1904 edition and the SBL Greek New Testament (2010) for John 1:17. The wording is consistent across these critical editions.

Textual Criticism and Lexical Notes:

The textual tradition for John 1:17 is remarkably stable, with no major variants affecting the reading of ὁ νόμος διὰ Μωϋσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο. Thus, the exegetical task focuses on interpretation rather than textual reconstruction (cf. NA28).

Lexically, the key terms provide important semantic ranges:

• νόμος (nomos): Refers primarily to the Mosaic Law, encompassing the Torah and its requirements. In Johannine and Pauline theology, it often stands in contrast to the new covenant or the person of Christ.
• ἐδόθη (edothē): Aorist passive indicative of δίδωμι (“to give”). This verb emphasizes that the Law was an external bestowal, something “given” to humanity.
• χάρις (charis): According to BDAG, this term denotes “grace,” “favor,” “goodwill,” or “lovingkindness.” In a theological context, it signifies God’s unmerited favor and benevolent action towards humanity. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT) further expands on its rich theological implications, particularly its development from classical Greek to biblical usage as divine, salvific grace.
• ἀλήθεια (alētheia): BDAG defines this as “truth,” “reality,” “faithfulness,” “uprightness.” In John, ἀλήθεια is a profound theological concept often identified with Jesus himself and his revelation of God. It signifies ultimate reality and divine trustworthiness. TDNT discusses the multifaceted nature of truth, contrasting it with deception and highlighting its manifestation in person and deed.
• ἐγένετο (egeneto): Aorist middle/passive indicative of γίνομαι (“to become,” “to happen,” “to come into being”). Unlike ἐδόθη, this verb suggests a more dynamic and inherent coming-into-being or manifestation, emphasizing the incarnational reality of grace and truth in Christ.

Translation Variants and Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis

The central interpretive question for John 1:17 revolves around whether ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια functions as a hendiadys, a literary device where two nouns joined by a conjunction express a single complex idea, typically by having one noun function adjectivally to the other (e.g., “by length of time and siege” meaning “by a long siege,” as cited by Smyth §3025). The discussion presents arguments for and against this interpretation:

Arguments for Hendiadys:

• Some interpreters, such as E.W. Bullinger in his “Figures of Speech Used in the Bible,” identify ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια as a hendiadys, suggesting a meaning akin to “the true grace.” This aligns with a theological perspective that sees Christ’s revelation as bringing a grace superior or more authentic than that associated with the Law.
• The Hebrew phrase חסד ואמת (ḥesed wĕ’emet, “lovingkindness and truth” or “steadfast love and faithfulness”) found frequently in the Old Testament (e.g., Genesis 24:29; 47:29) is often understood by scholars, and by ancient commentators like Rashi, as a hendiadys, meaning “true lovingkindness” or “steadfast loyalty.” This suggests a Semitic linguistic background that might influence the Johannine author’s Greek expression. The argument is that for a Jewish author like John, this common Hebrew combination could naturally carry a hendiadys sense into Greek, even if his readers might not immediately perceive it as such.
• Blass-Debrunner-Funk (BDF) §442(16) discusses hendiadys and provides examples where two articular nouns joined by καί are interpreted in a hendiadys-like fashion. Examples cited include:
  • James 5:10: τῆς κακοπαθείας καὶ τῆς μακροθυμίας, sometimes translated as “perseverance in suffering.”
  • Luke 2:47: ἐπὶ τῇ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ, potentially rendered as “at his intelligent answers.”
  • Mark 6:26 = Matthew 14:9: διὰ δὲ τοὺς ὅρκους καὶ τοὺς συνανακειμένους, interpreted by some as “because of the oath taken before his guests.”

  These examples demonstrate that, at least in certain contexts, BDF considers such constructions with articles as potentially functioning like hendiadys, where one noun implicitly modifies the other or both combine to form a single idea.

Arguments Against Hendiadys:

• Grammatical Structure: A primary argument against a hendiadys interpretation is the presence of the definite article ἡ before *both* χάρις and ἀλήθεια. In classical Greek, as noted by Smyth (§3025), unambiguous examples of hendiadys are typically anarthrous. The repetition of the article typically signals that two distinct concepts are being presented, even if closely related. While BDF suggests some exceptions, the default Greek understanding would be two separate entities.
• Authorial Intent and Rhetorical Strategy: Doubts exist regarding whether the Gospel authors, particularly John, consistently employed such sophisticated literary devices deliberately. While some New Testament authors (e.g., the author of Hebrews) exhibit high rhetorical skill, the Johannine style is generally more direct and repetitive. Attributing a subtle hendiadys might place an interpretive burden on the text that the author did not consciously intend, potentially obscuring a simpler, more direct meaning. Authors usually aim for clarity, and overly subtle literary devices risk being misunderstood by the audience.
• Semantic Independence of Terms: In John’s Gospel, ἀλήθεια is a profoundly significant theological concept, often personified in Christ. To reduce it to an adjective modifying χάρις (“true grace”) risks diminishing its independent theological weight. The contrast in verse 17 is multifaceted:
  • Sources: Moses vs. Jesus Christ.
  • Verbs: ἐδόθη (a passive “was given” – external bestowal) vs. ἐγένετο (an active “came into being” – inherent manifestation).
  • Concepts: ὁ νόμος (the Law) vs. ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια (the grace and the truth).

  These three pairs of contrasts suggest that “grace” and “truth” are distinct, yet intrinsically linked, characteristics of the new reality brought by Christ, standing in opposition to the Law as a system. The fullness of grace and the fullness of truth are both revealed in Jesus.

• Re-evaluation of BDF Examples: The examples from James 5:10, Luke 2:47, and Mark 6:26 cited by BDF as potential hendiadys can also be understood as closely associated but distinct concepts. For instance, in James 5:10, “suffering” and “patience” are distinct but concurrently experienced realities for the prophets. In Luke 2:47, Jesus’ “understanding” and “answers” are separate manifestations of his wisdom. Interpreting these as separate but related ideas preserves the individual semantic force of each noun.
• Semitisms and Koine Greek: While the Hebrew background of חסד ואמת is undeniable, it is crucial to analyze the Greek text on its own terms. As noted in scholarship concerning the non-literary papyri (e.g., Deissmann’s “Light from the Ancient East”), many constructions previously considered Semitisms were, in fact, common in everyday Koine Greek. Therefore, attributing a Semitic hendiadys to the Greek of John 1:17 might be an overreach, especially given the typically distinct usage of articles in Greek.

Conclusions and Translation Suggestions

Based on the grammatical evidence and rhetorical considerations, interpreting ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια as a strict hendiadys is less likely. The repetition of the definite article strongly suggests two distinct, though intimately related, concepts that characterize the person and work of Jesus Christ. While the Hebrew parallelism of חסδ ואמת undoubtedly informs the pairing of these terms, the Greek syntax of John 1:17 appears to emphasize the distinct yet co-occurring nature of grace and truth as foundational elements of Christ’s revelation. These two attributes represent the fulfillment and surpassing of what was mediated through Moses, which was the Law.

Therefore, a translation that maintains the distinctness of “grace” and “truth” while acknowledging their profound connection in Christ is most appropriate for John 1:17.

Translation Suggestions:

1. “For the Law was given through Moses; the grace and the truth came through Jesus Christ.”
   This translation maintains the literal distinction of the two nouns, emphasizing each as a separate, full reality brought by Jesus.
2. “For the Law was given through Moses; the grace and faithful reality came through Jesus Christ.”
   This rendering highlights the nuance of ἀλήθεια as divine faithfulness and the ultimate reality revealed in Christ, while keeping it distinct from χάρις.
3. “For the Law was given through Moses; true grace came through Jesus Christ.”
   This option reflects the hendiadys interpretation, treating ἀλήθεια as adjectival to χάρις, suggesting a grace that is authentic, genuine, and superior to any prior manifestation. While less grammatically likely, it captures a theological emphasis on the qualitative difference of Christ’s revelation.