the Lord would go into Galilee, and He wanted disciples, and Philip was called. Before

leaving for Galilee, Philip emulates Andrew's example, and finds Nathaniel, saying:

Instead of using the title of "the Messiah" Philip refers to the fulfillment of Old

Testament prophecy that pointed Him out. It is unjustifiable to magnify the added words,

"the son of Joseph" into a text from which to discuss the validity of the virgin birth. The

Gospel of Matthew, which clearly sets Joseph gives the genealogy of the Saviour through

"Joseph, the husband of Mary", and Luke who gives very explicit information about

the virgin birth of Christ, says in Luke 3: 23: "And Jesus Himself began to be about

thirty years of age, being as was supposed, the son of Joseph." Mary, herself, who

certainly knew the facts concerning the birth of Christ, did not hesitate to say to Him,

"Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing" (Luke 2: 48). Philip's remark therefore

cannot rightly be made into a theological term. He said what all said, "the son of

Joseph", for such He was "in law".

The testimony of Nathaniel gathers up what has been distributed among the witnesses,

and brings the opening set of testimony to a climax. Like Thomas, Nathaniel was not

easily convinced. He seized on the reference to "Nazareth", saying, "Can there any good

thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1: 46).  This was the attitude of mind which

prompted the rejoinder of the officers of the chief priest: "Search and look, for out of

Galilee ariseth no prophet" (John 7: 52). The fact that John records the opinion of

Nathaniel regarding Nazareth, and the opinion of the leaders of the Jews regarding

Galilee [and we must remember that Christ was called, "The prophet of Nazareth of

Galilee" (Matt. 21: 11)], suggests that he was here meeting an objection.

Some who knew the prophecy concerning Bethlehem may not have known how it

could be reconciled with the reference to Nazareth.  Here it is faced, though not

explained. Possibly the emphasis on Bethlehem fits the kingdom purpose of Matthew,

and the emphasis on "Galilee of the nations" and despised Nazareth, fits the world-wide

purpose of John's Gospel. Apparently Philip did not debate the matter with Nathaniel,

but used the argument that had proved irresistible with Andrew and John, "Come and

see". As Nathaniel approached the Lord, the Saviour said: "Behold an Israelite indeed in

whom is no guile" (John 1: 47). Had there been a trace of guile in Nathaniel's character

he would have affected a little modesty and disclaimed such an unqualified description of

his character as flattering, but, genuinely guileless, he accepts the description as true,

nevertheless asks in astonishment how the Lord could thus know his character. The

answer revealed that he stood before a Prophet: "Before that Philip called thee, when

thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee" (John 1: 48).

It was not unusual for some such place of seclusion to be sought for prayer, and the

fact that the Lord had knowledge not only of Nathaniel's character, but of his private

devotions, brought him to his great confession: "Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou

art the King of Israel" (John 1: 49).