John 1:46

“ Philip finds Nathanael and says to him: We have found Him of whom Moses, in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus, the son of Joseph, of Nazareth. ”

Philip's part in the calling of Nathanael is like that of Andrew in the calling of Peter, and that of Peter and Andrew in his own. One lighted torch serves to light another; thus faith propagates itself. Luthardt sets forth finely the heavy and complicated form of Philip's profession; those long preliminary considerations, that full and formal Messianic certificate, which is in contrast with the lively and unconstrained style of Andrew's profession (John 1:42). The same traits of character are met with again in the two disciples in John 6:1-13, and perhaps also in John 12:21-22. From the fact that Philip designates Jesus as the son of Joseph, and as a native of Nazareth, Strauss, de Wette, and others, conclude that the fourth evangelist either was ignorant of, or did not admit, the miraculous origin of Jesus and His birth at Bethlehem; as if it were the evangelist who was here speaking, and not Philip! And that disciple, after exchanging ten words with Jesus, must have been already thoroughly acquainted with the most private circumstances of His birth and infancy! Is it Andrew and Peter who must have informed him of them?

But whence could they have got the knowledge of them themselves? Or Jesus? We must suppose, then, that this was the first thing that Jesus hastened to communicate to them: that He was not the son of the man who was said to be His father, that He was miraculously born! How criticism can become foolish, through its desire of being sagacious! The place where Nathanael was met by Jesus and His disciples, when returning to Galilee, is not pointed out. The most probable supposition is, that they met each other in the course of the journey. Philip, who was his fellow-citizen Nathanael was also of Cana (John 21:2) became the connecting-link between him and Jesus. We may suppose that Nathanael was returning home from the presence of John the Baptist, or that, like all his pious fellow-countrymen, he was going to be baptized by him. At all events, he had just rested for a few moments in the shade of a fig-tree, when he met Jesus and His companions (comp. John 1:48).

Ewald wrongly supposes the meeting to have taken place at Cana. The circumstantial account of the calling of Nathanael leads us to believe that he afterwards became one of the apostles: for this is the case with all the disciples mentioned in this narrative. It appears, moreover, from John 21:2, where the apostles are distinguished from the mere disciples, and where Nathanael is placed among the former. As this name does not figure in the apostolic catalogues (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13), it is generally admitted that Nathanael is no other than Bartholomew, whose name is connected with that of Philip in almost all these lists. Bartholomew being only a patronymic (son of Tolmai or Ptolemy), there is no difficulty in this supposition. As for the hypothesis of Spath, that Nathanael is a symbolic name (this word signifies gift of God), invented by the later author to designate the apostle John, it is one of those fancies of the criticism of the day, which, if it needed any refutation, would be refuted by its insoluble inconsistency with John 21:2.