Nathanael, though one of the first few disciples to come to Jesus, is a man about whom little is known, although much is suggested. Exploring the various articles on this man, it is immediately clear that the absence of Nathanael from the general account of the Gospels has led to much curiosity. It is clear from this introduction that he was a man destined to follow Jesus. None could make such a powerful and immediate decision regarding the person of Jesus and then leave Him behind. It simply doesn’t fit with human nature that it should be so. That said, a large portion of what one reads of this man is speculative in nature, as indeed it must be given the lack of data to work from. Now, whether or not Nathanael and Bartholomew are the same man I’m not going to explore here. If they are, then perhaps I will find I have met Nathanael twice before this study is over.
One thing that seems to be certain about Nathanael is that he was a pious man, devoted to the Law of God. This is seen in the setting in which he is found, praying fervently to God under a fig tree. One of the encyclopedias explained this as evidencing his desire to be invisible in prayer, but that misses the point. The significance is in his location, not his posture. The fig tree is noted for a reason. It was the symbol of peace and prosperity, thus the symbol of Israel’s Messianic hopes Nathanael was, in that moment of which Jesus speaks, praying for the peace of Jerusalem, praying that God would send His Salvation, the promised Messiah. Imagine his surprise, then, when he is interrupted in his prayers by Philip coming to say, “we have found Him!” How much are we awed by God when He works to bring about those ‘coincidental’ answers to our prayers, or when He causes the message from the pulpit to address exactly what we’ve been dealing with, exactly what we’ve been finding in our own devotions? Can you imagine, then, what an impact this simple announcement must have had on Nathanael? This cannot have been lost on him!
Yet, it must have confused him a bit to hear what followed. “He is Jesus, son of Joseph from Nazareth.” What? How does Nazareth figure into this? That seems to be the sense of his response. Through the years, it has been taken as a comment on the quality of the average Nazarene, but I think it really is Nathanael expressing surprise, confusion, a shock of emotions at first hearing the confirmation of his prayers and then immediately hearing that which made no sense at all. One of the other suggestions made about Nathanael, which I think can only be based on this encounter, is that he was well-versed in Scripture. Whether or not he was synagogue-trained, educated in accord with Temple expectations, I think must remain unknown. I rather think not, but it’s supposition one way or the other. However, whether by official channels or by personal attention, he is deemed a man very familiar with Scripture, one who has poured over the prophecies, especially as they concern Messiah. As much as it can be said of any man, he knows what there is to know on this subject, and frankly, Nazareth doesn’t seem to come into it.
Over and over again we find that the national expectations, the best understanding of the prophetic record, while true, still led to wrong conclusions. Yes, Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and so He was. Nothing said He would remain there for life, though. Yes, the King must be of Judah’s tribe, but where was it written that He must arrive in Judea? As so often seems to be the case, the min of man had jumped from what was said in the Scriptures to assumptions that had no Scriptural basis at all.
Now, concerning this account of Nathanael meeting Jesus, I find two great mysteries, neither of which do I suppose I will resolve here, but they hold my curiosity nonetheless. The first of these mysteries is how it was that he was known to these three from Bethsaida. Mind you, that Nathanael was not from Bethsaida is based on further assumption, that he is indeed the same Nathanael noted as being from Cana. Indeed, some texts push the assumption further, and suggest that it was his wedding of which we read. That, however, seems less likely to me, since it is John who tells us of Nathanael, and it is John who tells us of that wedding. Seems to me he would have mentioned it if the wedding was Nathanael’s. However, he settles for telling us that Jesus was invited, along with the disciples. So, perhaps it was an acquaintance of Nathanael’s? At any rate, by some means Nathanael has become known to these three fishermen, and known sufficiently that they seek him out before heading off with Jesus.
Can it be that this is yet another indication of Nathanael’s greater learning? After all, these three, so far as we know, are pretty simple men – not stupid, just simple; down to earth. Perhaps Philip’s concern for finding Nathanael had as much to do with confirming his own opinions as it did with any sort of concern for Nathanael’s hopes. If he was a man familiar to these three, and known as the more educated friend when it came to the Scriptures, it shows good common sense on Philip’s part to call him in to see this One they would follow. Recall that Philip, so far as we know, did not have the benefit of John’s announcement. He had only that morning’s encounter with Jesus, of which all we have recorded is the simple command, “Follow Me.” Can he be blamed for wanting a second opinion on this Man? He was, as it were, calling in the experts, checking with the authority he had available to him, and, as I have noted elsewhere, what a relief it must have been to find that he confirmed it all!
It was one thing for these fishermen to follow after some teacher, yet there had been many teachers, and they had, for all we know, followed many others before only to be disappointed. To some degree, that was happening again right now, as John declared, “I am not the One.” Had they come looking for anything less? I think not. Granted, that disappointment had been ameliorated by his pointing out this Man, and they had been quick enough to shift their attention. Still, it must have been a great comfort to have Nathanael come to the same conclusion. They had only John’s reputation and word to add to their brief encounter with this Teacher. Nathanael had understanding. He knew what the Scriptures said. If he was also convinced, well, now we’ve got something!
Now comes the second mystery in this encounter. As odd as it may seem that this man from Cana was known to three men from Bethsaida, stranger still is that this obscure carpenter’s son from Nazareth was known to them as well. Now, it may be that He had introduced Himself more fully to Philip. It strikes me that quite a lot may have transpired between Jesus saying, “Follow Me” and Philip taking off to find Nathanael. It seems highly likely that in the course of that unrecorded conversation Jesus introduced Himself. I am also taken by the fact that Joseph appears to have had a reputation in Galilee. He was, perhaps, a particularly skillful carpenter, and thus was known outside the confines of Nazareth. It is also possible, perhaps even likely, that the circumstances of his marriage to Mary had escaped the bounds of that town as well.
So, fine. Joseph may have been known even as far off as Bethsaida. Yet, we have this seeming contradiction. Philip speaks of the Messiah being Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph’s son, as though this should be a reference Nathanael would know. Yet, when Nathanael hears Jesus’ comment about him, his reaction is “How do You know me?” That would seem to indicate that these men had never met.
There are a number of possible explanations for this. Perhaps Philip is merely thinking that Cana is close to Nazareth so maybe Nathanael has heard of him. That may be all it is. After all, it is not uncommon, when people learn where we are from, that they may mention some other acquaintance of theirs who is from that same place on the off chance that we might know them. Be the odds ever so great against it, yet the mention will be made. That could be all that should be read into Philip’s mention.
There is also the possibility, as has been mentioned, that Joseph was known for his workmanship. If I return to the thought that Jesus and Philip had conversed a bit before Philip went to find Nathanael, then Jesus quite probably mentioned His father. After all, lineage was of great import to Jewish life. It is this very importance that causes us to consider the possibility that Nathanael is Nathanael bar Tholomew, much as Peter is identified as Simon bar Jonah. So, it may be that Philip is merely mentioning Joseph as a means of giving Nathanael some point of reference.
I am led to conclude, then, that it is the terseness of the account that causes the appearance of conflict here. Philip’s mention of Jesus does not, as it might first seem, require us to understand that Nathanael knew Jesus even vaguely. Furthermore, even if he was aware of Jesus, or at least of Joseph, that would not necessarily indicate that Jesus had any cause to know of him. Indeed, we could envision Nathanael’s response having been slightly longer. “I’ve heard of You, seen Your father’s work, but how is it You know me?”
What an exciting reply that really is! There’s so much that is left unsaid in that simple exchange that remains just below the surface. Notice, for instance that Nathanael didn’t play the “I’m so humble” card. He didn’t insist that Jesus had it wrong. He accepted the assessment as fair and reasonable. We could, I suppose, hear his response become longer still. “Yes, it is as You say, but how have You come to know me? I mean, I know You, Your father is known for his work, but have we actually met?” You know, the very fact that he doesn’t try to offer a denial that he doesn’t really believe, doesn’t attempt to be all self-effacing in the light of such a compliment, is proof of the accuracy of that compliment. There is no duplicity in him. He is who he is.
As so often seems to be the case in conversations with Jesus, it doesn’t appear as though He answers the question though He does. He answers in a way that only Nathanael seems to understand, though the other three heard as well. “I saw you under the fig tree.” No, on the surface that doesn’t answer the question at all. But Nathanael, perhaps indicating that greater learning that is supposed in his case, hears more in that answer than what lies on the surface. He hears exactly what Jesus intended for him to hear. “I was visiting with you while you were under that tree. I AM the One you were talking to, praying to. That is how I have come to know you. I have heard the silent conversation of your heart, and it has revealed your true character.” Wow! Is it any wonder that Nathanael’s faith was so immediate and so complete?
God, it’s a truth we all know well enough, that You look upon the heart, hear the heart. But, how powerful to hear it said outright! How encouraging to hear it in conjunction with such praise. Oh, that You could look upon my heart and find it so. Yet, I know that my heart remains in need of Your renewing touch. There is so much there that ought not to be. There are too many times when I feel the need to but a good face on things, to settle for appearances. God! I long for the appearances to reflect the reality! I long for the day when I can hear such praise from You because it is deserved! Lord, steer my path along the ways of righteousness. Keep me free both from false humility and false pride. Make of me a man after Your own heart, a man whose heart desires what Your heart desires. Oh, You have done great things in me, yet so much remains to be done, and the time seems so short. I invite You once again to reign in me. Oh, I know well enough that You do reign in me. You reign whether I would have it so or not, but I want to be found willing, wanting Your sovereignty displayed in my life. Let me be found wholly Yours, wholly devoted, living a life that proclaims “Holy unto the Lord.”
Finally, in Jesus’ comments to Nathanael, there is an obvious connection made to Jacob. The imagery of angels descending and ascending is a clear allusion to his own experience in Bethel, the house of God. But, the parallels go beyond that simple comment, as Fausset’s brings out. Both men were likewise brought to the same realization. Surely, the Lord is in this place and I did not know it (Ge 28:15). Nathanael had this same dawning realization as Jesus answered his question.
Jacob saw the angels descending and ascending, witnessed an open heaven, and knew himself to be in the house of God. Nathanael would be blessed to see that same open heaven, that same descent and ascent of the angels, and would know himself to be a member of the household of God.
Further, Jacob at a later date would find himself wrestling with God in a most physical fashion. He would, on that occasion, have his name changed by the one he wrestled with, because he had “striven with God and with men and had prevailed” (Ge 32:28). Nathanael had also been wrestling with God and man, but in his case it had been a matter purely of spirit. He had been praying for God’s Messiah to come. He had been praying most earnestly for the Promise, and he had prevailed. Here before him stood the Promise.
After these events at the very start of Jesus’ ministry we will not hear of Nathanael again until after His death and resurrection. Yet, is it not clear that he must surely have been with Jesus from this moment onward? Indeed, in that other reference (Jn 21:2), there is at least a loose intimation that he was among Jesus’ disciples still. Was he of the twelve? Can we name him Bar Tholomew? This is less certain to me. It would not be unreasonable to think that he was one of the twelve, yet it is not necessary to have it so. The one thing that might make it so would be to find him named among the possible replacements for Judas.
Now, here’s an interesting aside. One of the arguments given for equating Nathanael and Bartholomew is that the two are never mentioned together, and that both, when named, are named in close association with Philip, paired as the brothers are paired. Yet, when the apostles are listed in Acts 1:13, penned by the same Luke who penned the gospel that bears his name, that pairing is not evident. Philip is joined with Thomas in this list, while Bartholomew is joined with Matthew. Whether there is anything to be read into this, I don’t know, but if there is nothing suggested here, is it really reasonable to find something suggested in the other apostolic lists?
Returning to the replacement of Judas, there is no direct mention of Nathanael. Here, the choice is offered between Joseph Barsabbas, also known as Justus, and Matthias, whose family name is not given. Consider the requirements that were made for apostolic service. These had to be men who were with Him from the beginning, from the time of His baptism. Surely, Nathanael was of that number. What is perhaps more striking is that these two men were, as well, yet this is the first we hear of them. Nathanael was a man in whom there was no guile, no falseness, nothing beyond the pure hope of Messiah. It strikes me that, as such, he was not one who would seek notoriety, would not seek office and authority amongst his brothers. Is it not entirely possible, probable even, that he would choose to be one who worked earnestly and quietly, outside the spotlight? If our concern is truly for the kingdom of God, for His plans and purposes, should we not do likewise? What use have we for a name, except it serve to magnify His name! Let that be the lesson we carry from Nathanael’s brief story, that we are called to such a devotion to our Lord and Savior that who we are in ourselves is utterly insignificant, and He is all.
