The interpretation timeline
John 1:17 Douay-Rheims

For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

A.D. 253 – 1871 8 witnesses

Patristic

before A.D. 750
253
A.D.
Origen Patristic
c. A.D. 184–253
“(in Joan. t. vi. 3.) This is to be considered a continuation of the Baptist’s testimony to Christ, a point which has escaped the attention of many, who think that from this to, He hath declared Him, (v. 18) St. John the Apostle is speaking. But the idea that on a sudden, and, as it would seem, unseasonably, the discourse of the Baptist should be interrupted by a speech of the disciple’s, is inadmissible. And any one, able to follow the passage, will discern a very obvious connexion here. For having said, He is preferred before me, for He was before me, he proceeds, From this I know that He is before me, because I and the Prophets who preceded me have received of His fulness, and grace for grace, (the second grace for the first.) For they too by the Spirit penetrated beyond the figure to the contemplation of the truth. And hence receiving, as we have done, of his fulness, we judge that the law was given by Moses, but that grace and truth were made1, by Jesus Christ—made, not given: the Father gave the law by Moses, but made grace and truth by Jesus. But if it is Jesus who says below, I am the Truth, (John 14:6) how is truth made by Jesus? We must understand however that the very substantial Truth2, from which First Truth and Its Image many truths are engraven on those who treat of the truth, was not made through Jesus Christ, or through any one; but only the truth which is in individuals, such as in Paul, e. g. or the other Apostles, was made through Jesus Christ.”
Source
407
A.D.
John Chrysostom Patristic
A.D. 347–407
“(Hom. xiv. [xiii.] sparsim.) Or we have received grace for grace; that is, the new in the place of the old. For as there is a justice and a justice besides, an adoption and another adoption, a circumcision and another circumcision; so is there a grace and another grace: only the one being a type, the other a reality. He brings in the words to shew that the Jews as well as ourselves are saved by grace: it being of mercy and grace that they received the law. Next, after he has said, Grace for grace, he adds something to shew the magnitude of the gift; For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. John when comparing himself with Christ above had said, He is preferred before me: but the Evangelist draws a comparison between Christ, and one much more in admiration with the Jews than John, viz. Moses. And observe his wisdom. He does not draw the comparison between the persons, but the things, contrasting grace and truth to the law: the latter of which he says was given, a word only applying to an administrator; the former made, as we should speak of a king, who does every thing by his power: though in this King it would be with grace also, because that with power He remitted all sins. Now His grace is shewn in His gift of Baptism, and our adoption by the Holy Spirit, and many other things; but to have a better insight into what the truth is, we should study the figures of the old law: for what was to be accomplished in the New Testament, is prefigured in the Old, Christ at His Coming filling up the figure. Thus was the figure given by Moses, but the truth made by Christ.”
Source
430
A.D.
Augustine of Hippo Patristic
A.D. 354–430
“(in Joan. Tr. iii. c. 8. et seq.) But what have ye received? Grace for grace. So that we are to understand that we have received a certain something from His fulness, and over and above this, grace for grace; that we have first received of His fulness, first grace; and again, we have received grace for grace. What grace did we first receive? Faith: which is called grace, because it is given freely3. This is the first grace then which the sinner receives, the remission of his sins. Again, we have grace for grace; i. e. in stead of that grace in which we live by faith, we are to receive another, viz. life eternal: for life eternal is as it were the wages of faith. And thus as faith itself is a good grace, so life eternal is grace for grace. There was not grace in the Old Testament; for the law threatened, but assisted not, commanded, but healed not, shewed our weakness, but relieved it not. It prepared the way however for a Physician who was about to come, with the gifts of grace and truth: whence the sentence which follows: For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth were made by Jesus Christ. The death of thy Lord hath destroyed death, both temporal and eternal; that is the grace which was promised, but not contained, in the law.”
Source

Scholastic

c. 1100 – 1500
1270
A.D.
Thomas Aquinas Catholic
1225–1274
“Above, the Evangelist showed how the apostles received grace from Christ, by his doing; here he shows how they received it from him by his teaching it. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows the necessity of this teaching, saying "No man hath seen God at any time"; second, the doctor's capacity for teaching it, there "the only begotten who is in the bosom of the Father"; third, he sets forth the teaching itself, there "he hath declared." Now the necessity of this teaching was the lack of wisdom in men, which lack indeed the Evangelist implies through the ignorance of God that abounded among men, saying "No man hath seen God at any time." And this he does fittingly: for wisdom consists properly in the knowledge of God and of divine things. Whence Augustine says that wisdom is the knowledge of divine things, just as knowledge is of human things. But what the Evangelist here says, "No man hath seen God at any time," seems to be contrary to several authorities of divine Scripture. For it is said in Isaiah 6:1: "I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated"; in 2 Kings 6:2 almost the same is found: "the name of the Lord sitting upon the Cherubim," etc.; Matthew 5:8, the Lord says: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." But if someone should answer to this last, saying that it is true that in the past no one saw him, but in the future he shall see, as the Lord promises, the Apostle excludes this, saying in 1 Timothy, last chapter, 16: "He dwelleth in light inaccessible, whom no man hath seen, nor indeed can see." But because the Apostle says "no man hath seen," someone could say that if he cannot be seen by men, at least he is seen by the angels, especially since God says in Matthew 18:10: "Their angels in heaven always see the face of the Father." But neither in this way can it be said, because, as is said in Matthew 22:30: "The children of the resurrection shall be as the angels of God in heaven." If therefore the angels see God in heaven, it is manifest also that the children of the resurrection see him too; 1 John 3:2: "When he shall appear, we shall be like to him, and we shall see him as he is." How then is this to be understood, that which the Evangelist says, "No man hath seen God at any time"? For the understanding of this, therefore, it must be known that God is said to be seen in three ways. In one way indeed through a subject creature, presented to bodily sight; as Abraham is believed to have seen God, when he saw three and adored one, Genesis 18; he adored one indeed, because the three, whom he had first reckoned to be men, and afterwards believed to be angels, he recognized the mystery of the Trinity. In another way through a represented imagination; and thus Isaiah saw the Lord sitting upon a throne high and elevated. Many visions similar to this are found in the Scriptures. And in yet another way he is seen through some intelligible species abstracted from sensible things, by those who through the consideration of the magnitude of creatures behold in their intellect the magnitude of the Creator, as is said in Wisdom 13:5: "For by the greatness of the beauty and of the creature the creator of them may be knowably seen," and Romans 1:20: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the creature of the world through the things that are made." In another way through some spiritual light infused by God into spiritual minds in contemplation; and in this way Jacob saw God face to face, Genesis 32:30, which vision, according to Gregory, was accomplished through lofty contemplation. But through none of these visions is the vision of the divine essence attained: for no created species, whether that by which the exterior sense is informed, or that by which the imagination is informed, or that by which the intellect is informed, is representative of the divine essence as it is. Now a man knows through its essence that thing which the species he has in his intellect represents as it is: therefore through no species is the vision of the divine essence attained. And that no created species represents the divine essence is clear: because nothing finite can represent the infinite as it is; but every created species is finite: therefore, and so on. Moreover, God is his own being; and therefore his wisdom and goodness, and whatever else, are the same; but through one created thing all these could not be represented: therefore the knowledge by which God is seen through creatures is not of his essence, but enigmatic and mirror-like, and from afar. Job 36:25: "All men see him," in some of the said ways, "but each one beholds afar off," because through all those knowledges it is not known concerning God what he is, but what he is not, or whether he is. Whence Dionysius says in the book on Mystical Theology, that the perfect mode by which God is known in the present life is through the removal of all creatures, and of the things understood by us. Now there were some saying that the divine essence will never be seen by any created intellect, and that it is not seen even by the angels or the blessed. But this proposition is shown to be false and heretical in three ways. First indeed, because it is contrary to the authority of divine Scripture; 1 John 3:2: "We shall see him as he is"; and below, 17:3: "This is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." Second, because the brightness of God is nothing other than his substance: for it is not shining by participation of light, but through itself. Third, because it is impossible that anyone attain perfect beatitude, except in the vision of the divine essence: because the natural desire of the intellect is to know and understand the causes of all effects known by it; which cannot be fulfilled unless the first universal cause of all things is known and understood, which is not composed of effect and cause, as are the secondary causes. And therefore to take away the possibility of the vision of the divine essence from men is to take away beatitude itself. It is necessary therefore for the beatitude of the created intellect that the divine essence be seen, Matthew 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God." Now as regards the vision of the divine essence, three things must be attended to. First, because it will never be seen by the bodily eye, or by any sense, or by the imagination, since through the senses nothing is perceived except corporeal sensible things; but God is incorporeal; below, 4:24: "God is a spirit." Second, because the human intellect, so long as it is joined to the body, cannot see God, because it is weighed down by the corruptible body, so that it cannot reach to the summit of contemplation. And thence it is that the soul, the more it is free from the passions, and purged from the affections of earthly things, so much the more does it ascend into the contemplation of truth, and taste how sweet the Lord is. Now the highest degree of contemplation is to see God through his essence; and therefore, so long as man lives in the body subject of necessity to many passions, he cannot see God through his essence. Exodus, chapter 33:20: "Man shall not see me and live." For this therefore, that the human intellect may see the divine essence, it is necessary that it totally forsake the body; either through death, as the Apostle says, 2 Corinthians 5:8: "We are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present to the Lord"; or that it be totally abstracted through rapture from the bodily senses, as is read of Paul, 2 Corinthians, chapter 12:3. In the third way, that no created intellect, however much abstracted, whether through death, or separated from the body, seeing the divine essence, can in any way comprehend it. And therefore it is commonly said that, although the whole divine essence is seen by the blessed, since it is most simple and lacking parts, nevertheless it is not seen totally, because this would be to comprehend it. For this that I say, "totally," expresses a certain mode. Now any mode of God is the divine essence; whence he who does not see him totally does not comprehend him. Now someone is properly said to comprehend some thing in knowing it, who knows that thing as far as it is knowable in itself; otherwise, although he knows it, nevertheless he does not comprehend it. As he who knows this proposition, "a triangle has three angles equal to two right angles," by a dialectical syllogism, does not know it as far as it is knowable, and therefore does not know it totally; but he who knows it by a demonstrative syllogism knows it totally. For each thing is knowable to the extent that it has of being and truth; but the knower himself knows to the extent that he has of cognitive power. Now every created intellectual substance is finite: therefore it knows finitely. Since therefore God is of infinite power and entity, and consequently infinitely knowable, he cannot be known by any created intellect as far as he is knowable; and therefore to every created intellect he remains incomprehensible; Job 36:26: "Behold, God is great, exceeding our knowledge." But he alone, by comprehending, contemplates himself, because his power in knowing is as great as his entity in being. Jeremiah 32:18: "Most strong, great, powerful, the Lord of hosts is thy name, great in counsel, incomprehensible in thought." Thus therefore, according to the premises, is understood "No man hath seen God at any time." First thus: "no man," that is, no man, "hath seen God," that is, the divine essence, with the bodily and imaginary eye. Second, "no man" living in this mortal life has seen the divine essence in itself. Third, "no man," man or angel, "hath seen God," with the vision of comprehension. But what is said of certain ones, that they saw God with the eye, or while living in the body, is understood not through his essence, but through a subject creature, as has been said. Thus therefore it was necessary that we receive wisdom, because "No man hath seen God at any time." Now a sufficient doctor of this wisdom is proposed to us by the Evangelist, when he adds "the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father," in which he shows us the capacity of the doctor himself through three things. Namely through natural likeness, and through singular excellence, and through most perfect consubstantiality. Through natural likeness, because the Son naturally has the likeness of the Father. And thence it is also that someone is called a son of God to the extent that he participates in the likeness of the natural Son; and to the extent that he knows, to the extent that he has of his likeness: because knowledge comes about through assimilation. 1 John 3:2: "Now we are the sons of God," and there follows: "When he shall appear, we shall be like to him, and we shall see him as he is." And therefore in this that the Evangelist says "Son," there is implied likeness, and aptitude for knowing God. But because this doctor knows God more specially than the other sons, therefore the Evangelist implies this through singular excellence, when he says "only begotten"; as if to say: this one knows God before the other sons. Therefore he is called "only begotten," because he is the natural Son, having the same nature and knowledge with the Father; Psalm 2:7: "The Lord said to me: Thou art my Son." But although he might know singularly, nevertheless the capacity of teaching could still be lacking to him, if he did not know totally; and therefore he adds a third thing, namely his consubstantiality with the Father, when he says "in the bosom of the Father": so that "bosom" is not taken as it is customarily said among men girded with a garment, but for the hidden place of the Father. For that we bear in secret which we carry in the bosom. Now the secret of the Father is because he exceeds every power and knowledge, since the divine essence is infinite. In that bosom therefore, that is, in the most hidden place of the paternal nature and essence, which exceeds every power of a creature, is the only begotten Son; and therefore he is consubstantial with the Father. And what the Evangelist here signified through "bosom," this David expressed through "womb," saying in Psalm 109:3: "From the womb before the day star," that is, from the innermost and hidden place of my essence, incomprehensible to every created intellect, "I begot thee," and consubstantial to me, and of the same nature and power and might and knowledge; 1 Corinthians 2:11: "The things that are of man, no man knoweth, but the spirit of man (...) and the things that are of God, no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God." He comprehends therefore the divine essence, which is his own. But the soul of Christ, in knowing God, does not comprehend him, because this is said only of the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father. Whence also the Lord says in Matthew 11:27: "No one knoweth the Father, but the Son, and he to whom the Son shall be willing to reveal him"; so that both are understood of the knowledge of comprehension, of which the Evangelist here seems to speak. For no one comprehends the divine essence, except God the Father alone, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Thus therefore is clear the capacity of the doctor for teaching. It is also to be noted, that through this that he says "who is in the bosom of the Father," is excluded the error of certain ones, saying that the Father is invisible, but the Son visible, and that he was not seen in the Old Testament. For, from this that he is in the hidden place of the Father, it is manifest that he is naturally invisible, just as the Father. And on account of this Isaiah 45:15 said of him: "Thou art truly a hidden God." And therefore in divine Scripture mention is made of the incomprehensibility of the Son; Matthew 11:27: "No one knoweth the Son but the Father, neither doth any one know the Father but the Son"; Proverbs 30:4: "What is the name of his son, if thou knowest?" Consequently the Evangelist implies the manner of handing down the teaching itself, when he says "he hath declared." For of old the only begotten Son manifested the knowledge of God through the prophets, who announced him to the extent that they were partakers of the eternal Word. Whence they said: "The word of the Lord was made," and so on. But now the only begotten himself, the Son, has declared it to the faithful. Isaiah 52:6: "I myself that spoke, behold I am here"; Hebrews 1:1: "God, who at sundry times and in many ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, last of all in these days hath spoken to us by his Son." And this teaching therefore surpasses all other teachings in dignity, authority and usefulness, because it was handed down immediately by the only begotten Son, who is the first wisdom. Hebrews 2:3: "Which having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him." But what did he narrate except one God? This same thing Moses also declared, Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy God is one Lord." What therefore more than Moses? Much in every way, because the mystery of the Trinity, and many other things, which neither Moses, nor any of the prophets narrated.”

Post-Reformation

c. 1650 – 1900
1771
A.D.
John Gill Reformed
1697–1771
“For the law was given by Moses,.... Both moral and ceremonial. The moral law was given to Adam, in innocence, which having been broken, and almost lost out of the minds, and memories of men, was given by Moses, in a new edition of it in writing; and points out what is man's duty both to God and men; discovers sin, accuses of it, convicts of it, and condemns for it; nor could it give strength to perform its demands; nor does it give the least hint of forgiveness; nor will it admit of repentance: and hence is opposed to grace; though it was a benefit to men, being in its own nature good and useful in its effects. The ceremonial law pointed out the pollution of human nature, the guilt and punishment of sin; was a type and shadow of deliverance by Christ, but could not give the grace it shadowed, and therefore is opposed both to grace and truth. Now both these were given by Moses to the people of the Jews, not as the maker, but the minister of them: it was God who appointed each of these laws, and ordained them in the hand of the mediator Moses, who received them from him, by the disposition of angels, and delivered them to the people of Israel; and a very high office this was he was put into, and a very great honour was conferred upon him; but Jesus Christ is a far greater person, and in an higher office: but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ: by grace and truth, is meant the Gospel, in opposition to the law; which is called grace, because it is a declaration of the love, and grace, of God to men; it ascribes salvation, in all the parts of it, to the free grace and favour of God; and is the means of implanting and increasing grace in the hearts of men. And "truth", not only because it contains truth, and nothing but truth, it coming from the God of truth; and the substance of it being Christ, who is the truth; and being revealed, applied, and led into by the Spirit of truth; but because it is the truth of the types, and the substance of the shadows of the law: or these two may mean distinct things; grace may design all the blessings of grace which are in Christ, and come by him; and truth, the promises, and the fulfilment of them, which are all yea, and amen, in Christ: and when these are said to be by him, the meaning is, not that they are by him, as an instrument, but as the author of them; for Christ is the author of the Gospel, and the fulfiller of the promises, and the giver of all grace; which shows the superior excellency of Christ to Moses, and to all men, and even to angels also.”
Source
1832
A.D.
Adam Clarke Methodist
1762–1832
“The law was given by Moses - Moses received the law from God, and through him it was given to the Jews, Act 7:38. But grace and truth - Which he had already mentioned, and which were to be the subject of the book which he was now writing, came to all mankind through Jesus Christ, who is the mediator of the new covenant, as Moses was of the old: Heb 8:6; Heb 9:15; Gal 3:19. See a fine discourse on this text by Mr. Claude, "Essay on the Composition of a Sermon," vol. i. p. 119, etc. edit. Lond. 1788. The law of Moses, however excellent in itself, was little in comparison of the Gospel: as it proceeded from the justice and holiness of God, and was intended to convict men of sin, that the way of the Gospel might be the better prepared, it was a law of rigour, condemnation, and death: Rom 4:15; Co2 3:7, Co2 3:8. It was a law of shadows, types, and figures: Heb 10:1, and incapable of expiating sin by its sacrifices: Rom 8:3; Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19; Heb 10:1, Heb 10:11. But Christ has brought that grace which is opposed to condemnation: Rom 5:15, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21; Rom 8:1; Gal 3:10; and he is himself the spirit and substance of all those shadows: Col 2:19; Heb 10:1. Jesus Christ - Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, or anointed prophet, priest, and king, sent from heaven. To what has already been said on the important name Jesus, (See Mat 1:21 (note), and the places there referred to), I shall add the following explanation, chiefly taken from Professor Schultens, who has given a better view of the ideal meaning of the root ישע yasha, than any other divine or critic. He observes that this root, in its true force, meaning, and majesty, both in Hebrew and Arabic, includes the ideas of amplitude, expansion, and space, and should be translated, he was spacious-open-ample; and, particularly, he possessed a spacious or extensive degree or rank: and is applied, 1. To a person possessing abundance of riches. 2. To one possessing abundant power. 3. To one possessing abundant or extensive knowledge. 4. To one possessing abundance of happiness, beatitude, and glory. Hence we may learn the true meaning of Zac 9:9 : Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion - behold, thy king cometh unto thee; he is Just, and having Salvation: - הושיע - he is possessed of all power to enrich, strengthen, teach, enlarge, and raise to glory and happiness, them who trust in him. Man by nature is in want and poverty: in abjectness and weakness: in darkness and ignorance: in straits and captivity: in wretchedness and infamy. His Redeemer is called ישועה Jesus - he who looses, enlarges, and endows with salvation. 1. He enriches man's poverty: 2. strengthens his weakness: 3. teaches his ignorance: 4. brings him out of straits and difficulties: and 5. raises him to happiness, beatitude, and glory. And the aggregate of these is Salvation. Hence that saying, His name shall be called Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins. See Schultens Origines Hebraeae, p. 15.”
Source
1863
A.D.
1796–1863
“Abundant grace came to mankind through Christ. Those who lived under the law could be saved only through His merits. The grace which was bestowed on them did not belong to the law, which was a mere external rule of action, prescribing what was to be done, without giving the necessary aid for its performance.”
1871
A.D.
1871
“For, &c.--The Law elicits the consciousness of sin and the need of redemption; it only typifies the reality. The Gospel, on the contrary, actually communicates reality and power from above (compare Rom 6:14). Hence Paul terms the Old Testament "shadow," while he calls the New Testament "substance" (Col 2:17) [OLSHAUSEN].”
Source
Modern · 1953 →

The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.