In Part 3 we looked at verses 19 to 39, where we were introduced to John the Baptist. We were also able to explore and understand his relationship with Jesus Christ; not just on a human level, but on a prophetic and spiritual level. You can read Part 3 (as well as Part 1 and Part 2) via the following links:

Word Study: Exploring the Gospel of John Chapter 1 (Part 1)

Word Study: Exploring the Gospel of John Chapter 1 (Part 2)

Word Study: Exploring the Gospel of John Chapter 1 (Part 3)

We will now conclude our study of the Gospel of John Chapter 1, in this final part (Part 4), by looking at the remaining verses in the chapter – verses 40 to 51.

Verses 40-42

“One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”‬‬
St. John 1:40-42 (KJV)

John the Baptist’s Maturity and Insight

We see here a transition occurring. John the Baptist, upon helping his disciples recognise who the promised Messiah was, encouraged them to go and follow him (Jesus). John’s task in directing his disciples to Christ showed that he possessed immense spiritual maturity and spiritual insight (discernment). He was mature enough to use Godly wisdom, to know that everything was not about him and that a transition had to take place in order for his followers to develop and for the Kingdom’s cause to progress. He was also spiritually insightful and discerning enough to recognise who the real Messiah was and what was about to happen, hence joyfully placing himself in the background so that Christ could now take the lead.

As John the Baptist himself famously said:

He must increase, but I must decrease.
St. John 3:30 (KJV)

Lessons Learnt from Andrew

Our attention is then turned to a man named Andrew, who, while being introduced, is identified as the brother of a man named Simon Peter. Both Andrew and his brother are fishermen by trade. Yet, according to the narrative, Andrew seems to be one who is more committed to his faith and to learning about and hearing from God. This can be assumed (and not necessarily determined) since Andrew was following John the Baptist and he had to go and find his brother to introduce Simon to Jesus.

There are some interesting lessons we can learn about/from Andrew. Firstly, being a fisherman, it would have not been a social norm (in those days) for him to be so engaged and committed to faith and learning (refer to Acts 4:13). Secondly, despite his regular job, he cherished learning about God and following God’s servants (e.g. John the Baptist) to the point that he was considered a “follower”. Thirdly, he loved others, especially his brother, to the point that as soon as he realised who Jesus was, he ran to get his brother. Maybe he was praying for his brother. Maybe both him and his brother were always passionate about seeing the prophecy of the Messiah being fulfilled. Maybe they were so close that, in his excitement, Andrew went for the person that he was closest to (his brother Simon) to reveal to his brother the greatest of revelations.

Simon Peter and Jesus

Jesus’ encounter with Peter is a monumental one. From their dialogue throughout the Gospel accounts you can see that Jesus saw Peter as a leader, not just among the disciples but, within the soon-to-be-established Church. Resultantly, it is somewhat heart-warming when Christ is introduced to Simon by Andrew and Christ says “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas“, with “Cephas” meaning “a stone” (The word “Peter” is also referred to as meaning “stone“, as seen in St. Matthew 16:18, hence why he is called “Simon Peter” or “Simon the stone“).

Jesus calling Simon “a stone” shows that Simon Peter would become instrumental in the foundational development of the soon-to-be-established Church, as well as to the development of the other disciples.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
St. Matthew 16:18 (KJV)

This scripture is an important one to consider. Interestingly, at first glance, it would seem as if Christ is saying “Peter is the rock” on which He (Christ) would build His Church. One may come to such a conclusion if looking at it via the confines of the English language.

If you observe it through the original Greek language that it was written in, however, you will see that there were certain differences being highlighted.

The Greek word used to describe Peter being a “rock” is the word “Petros“, which means “a stone” or “a boulder“. This word was frequently used to describe fragments of stones or isolated stone particles that would come off of a main stone structure. However, when Jesus said “on this rock I will build My Church”, the Greek word used here for “rock” is “Petra“, which means “a large mass of rock“.

Christ was showing that Peter was indeed going to play a major role in the foundational development of the Church. He was going to be “a rock” and “a boulder“, but he was not going to be the rock and the boulder. He was going to be part of the foundation but not the foundation itself. He was not going to be that large mass of stone or large boulder that the Church would be built on. Instead, that designation would be to Christ only. Christ would empower and work through Peter and the Disciples to lay the foundation work which would have been seen physically, while He (Christ) established the Church’s dominion and position in the spiritual realm (the Church here is referring to the redeemed people of God and not necessarily any particular denominational group/assembly).

Verses 43-46

“The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph. And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.”
St. John 1:43-46 (KJV)

The day after the encounter with Simon Peter, Jesus goes and finds Philip. A domino effect then happens where Philip goes to find his friend, Nathaniel, to tell him about Jesus. After his encounter, Philip is convinced that Jesus is the promised Messiah.

This, in essence, is a parallel event to what occurred with Andrew and Simon Peter. Just as Andrew, Philip encountered Jesus first. Philip understood the nature of the man, His true identity, and His message, thereby allowing him (Philip) to believe. Also, just as was the case with Andrew and Simon Peter, it seems that Jesus’ aim was also to reach Nathaniel through the testimony of Philip. In drawing such a parallel between the two encounters, however, it’s important to consider the difference in approach. Both Andrew and Philip approached Simon and Nathaniel, respectively, with the revelation that Jesus Christ was “the Messiah”. The difference in wording is however intriguing. Andrew told Peter that he had found “the Messiah”. It was therefore public knowledge of what the title “Messiah” entailed and what it meant to refer to someone by it. When Philip told Nathaniel, however, he went into some slightly deeper detail. He said, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph“. Philip evidently had to provide additional information to convince Nathaniel. In addressing Nathaniel he (Philip) had to highlight the following:

(1) Knowledge and confirmation of Jesus’ identity based on the Mosaic Law

(2) Knowledge and confirmation of Jesus’ identity based on the other Prophetic writings

(3) Jesus’ coming from Nazareth

(4) Jesus being the son of Joseph

The first two highlights could have been confirmed and used to show that Jesus was the true Messiah. The Old Testament contains over 300 prophecies of the Messiah, and Jesus is the only one to have ever met all of them. Nathaniel therefore, by a process of investigation, could have confirmed this.

But the other two points (points number 3 and number 4) were a bit contentious.

Jesus coming from Nazareth

It’s interesting that Philip mentions that Jesus is from “Nazareth” while making an effort to persuade Nathaniel. This was mainly because of the well-known stereotype, in those days, of anyone who came from Nazareth. “Nazarenes” were not held in any high regard and were, in fact, frequently despised in society. In fact, just as an example, the term “Nazarite” is different from “Nazarene” (although many persons might think of them as being the same thing). According to Numbers 6, a Nazarite vow was a vow of consecration to God. It involved the persons abstaining from wine/strong drink, refraining from making any physical contact with things that are dead, and also refraining from shaving their heads. Many scholars state that there is a possibility that both “Nazarite” and “Nazarene” came from one root word – the Hebrew word “Nasar”, which means “to consecrate” or “to set apart”. However, the word “Nazarene” is thought to have developed from a further developments of that Hebrew word “Nasar“. From “Nasar” came the word “Neser” which means “to watch” or “to keep”. Then, from “Neser” came the word “Netzer” which means “branch”.

It is thought that the name of the town of “Nazareth” was derived directly from this word “Netzer“. This word “Netzer” is also used in the scripture Isaiah 11:1 which says:

There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit.
Isaiah 11:1 (ESV)

Now, it is assumed that this scripture, along with other references (Psalm 22:6-13, Psalm 69:7-9, and Isaiah 49:7 and 53:2-3) point to evidence of Jesus having to be known as coming from Nazareth. Along with being used as a slur word (see Acts 24:5), the term “Nazarene” was used frequently to describe someone or something that was “despised”, “rejected” or even “impure”. Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem would have acted as pure evidence of His royal lineage. But his association with Nazareth strengthened further prophecies which describe Him as being “rejected” and “despised”.

So when Philip boldly mentions to Nathaniel that Jesus is from Nazareth, he would have known of the negative connotations in those days of the fabled city. But it shows that this was a Spirit-led process. For Philip the evidence of Jesus being the Messiah was too overwhelming, even superseding the societal views of his Nazareth upbringing and residence.

Jesus being the “son of Joseph”

Everyone knew that the Messiah had to be of a royal lineage (through King David and, of course, Abraham). However, history shows that after the exile, the return from exile, the re-establishing of the wall of Jerusalem, and the further events that occurred before, during and after the Maccabean revolts, things got a bit blurred.

In comes Mary and Joseph, two absolutely unassuming people. They do not reflect royalty in any earthly way. However, as we read in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke, they are direct descendants of King David himself. Matthew 1:16 shows that Joseph’s father was called Jacob, who was a direct descendant of King Solomon, son of King David. Then, in Luke 3:23, it shows that Joseph was seen as the son of Eli by marriage. This term meant that Eli was Mary’s father. Eli is then shown to be a direct descendant of Nathan, King David’s son. Now Jesus’ relationship to Joseph would have been a legal one. Joseph was not His biological father but Joseph was his mother’s husband, and therefore his legal father-figure/guardian. This meant that Jesus was legally part of the direct lineage of King David. His legitimacy is then strengthened even more with Mary. Mary is His (naturally speaking of course) biological mother. This meant that Jesus was biologically part of the direct lineage of King David.

So, in essence, His legitimacy was strengthened legally and biologically, making it irrefutable.

The disciples, of course, didn’t know of this at the time they encountered Jesus for the first time. This would have been a revelation obtained and recorded years after Christ’s resurrection and ascension. But, once again, it was the direction of the Holy Spirit for Philip to even mention this in any attempt to convince Nathaniel. After all, Joseph was just know simply as a carpenter.

All of this then strengthens the understanding of Nathaniel’s response when he says “can anything good come out of Nazareth?“. This shows (and which would be confirmed in the following verses) that Nathaniel was a well-learned and informed man. He knew the prophecies, he knew what to expect, and he definitely knew what not to expect. This makes the following words by his friend Philip seem even bolder when he replied by saying “come and see!“.

Verses 47-51

Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee. Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel. Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
St. John 1:47-51 (KJV)

There are some interesting parallels that can be drawn between Andrew and Phillip as well as parallels between Peter and Nathaniel. For Andrew and Phillip, they only needed the instructions “follow me” to associate themselves with Jesus as His disciples. For Peter and Nathaniel, the approach was different. For Peter, Jesus revealed to him a name change (from Simon to Peter). In meeting with Peter, Jesus had to address with him directly the issue of his (Peter’s) identity. Jesus issuing to him the moniker “Cephas” showed that He saw Peter as being more than Peter probably even saw himself as. Peter was to be a foundation for generational works to come. He was to be a pioneer of a movement that would last for time eternal. We do not know if Peter may have suffered from any inferiority complexes (that can only be assumed based on other passages of scripture). But we do know that Christ was showing him here that there was more to life than being a fisherman. In a successful attempt of using imagery, Jesus showed Peter that he would make him a fisher of men if he followed Him (ref. Matthew 4:19; Mark 1:17).

The case of Jesus’ encounter with Nathanael is also quite interesting.

There is not much said about Nathanael in scripture. He was from Cana of Galilee (ref. John 21:2). The gospel of John is also the only book in scripture that refers to him as “Nathanael” with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts referring to him as “Bartholomew”. Despite there being not many references about him, his first encounter with Jesus is one to take careful note of.

When Phillip approaches Nathanael, as we saw earlier in the article, he beckons to him to come and meet Jesus. By this time Phillip was already a follower of Jesus. Phillip told Nathanael to come and see the one who was the fulfilment of the prophetic writings and the Mosaic law. Phillip even went as far as saying he was from Nazareth and was the son of Joseph, which would have been seen as preposterous points to include in any argument in those days to convince Israelite of someone being the Messiah. Yet, Phillip uttered such words. Nathanael responded by saying “can anything good come out of Nazareth?“. Both Phillip and Nathanael seemed to have been men who were well acquainted with the prophetic writings about the coming Messiah and with the Mosaic law in general. Phillip’s approach to Nathanael with such immediacy in relation to the topic also showed that they probably spoke about the coming Messiah frequently. Along with such knowledge, the men would have been aware of the societal viewpoint of certain people groups and settlements, primarily Nazareth. They both knew that the society, for generations, viewed Nazareth in a negative light. After all, it was a small hill town of seemingly little significance throughout Hebrew history. It is therefore surprising that, despite having knowledge of the societal and historical viewpoint of Nazareth, Phillip was able to still say to Nathanael “come and see“.

Upon meeting Nathanael, Jesus makes an interesting and bold statement. He says, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” Many would look at this statement and be quite intrigued as to why Jesus greeted him in that way. Of course, our present knowledge of Jesus makes it a statement of no surprise as Jesus is, in fact, omniscient. But think about how shocking it would have been for Nathanael in that moment to hear such a statement from this mysterious man. This leads Nathanael to ask the question, “Whence knowest thou me?“. Now there are two intriguing ways of looking at this response from Nathanael. The first is the possibility that he was probably flabbergasted that someone he just met could make such a claim about his morality and spiritual integrity. The second is the possibility that he might have somehow seen himself in such a light, or at least considered his spiritual health on a regular basis to the point that he adhered frequently to the principles of the law; what Jesus therefore said might have resonated in that way. Of course these are two interesting theories with the first being the seemingly more probable. Nevertheless Nathanael was intrigued as to how this mystery man knew him and why he made such a statement.

Jesus then makes a revelation that rocks Nathanael’s world. He said, “Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.” This revelation someone not only shocked Nathanael but helped him to realise that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Not only that, Nathanael was able to recognise that Jesus was the Son of God and the King of Israel, which are both deep revelations of who the Messiah would be (something even most Israelites who waited for the Messiah might not have known). It can only be assumed what about this statement that Jesus made convinced Nathanael of His identity. Meditating and praying under trees was a frequent practice done in ancient Israel. It represented and provided the peace and quiet needed to focus and zoom-in on having a conversation with God Himself. Jesus could have chosen various other things to speak to Nathanael about, even events that may have happened to him in the past. But there was something special about whatever Nathanael experienced under the fig tree that, when Jesus mentioned it, struck the right chord with him. Maybe God spoke to him about certain things and the Holy Spirit confirmed them overwhelmingly upon seeing and hearing Jesus. Maybe, being a man who has no “guile”, he was upset with the state of society and was praying concerning the coming of the Messiah to set things right.

Jesus then says to him, which rounds off the Gospel of John chapter 1:

Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these. And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

As deep as the revelation was for Nathanael, Jesus wanted him to know that he (Nathanael) was about to experience deeper and greater things. Jesus even addresses the supernatural with him, stating that he would see the very heavens opened, with the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man. This encounter is much different from Jesus’ encounter with the other disciples. Off the bat, Jesus is seemingly engaging with Nathanael about supernatural things. This could show that Nathanael, being a man within who there is no guile, is one who is quite in tune with such things. He could have been quite cognisant about how God was working in his then present time, and about what was happening in general in the spirit (these are assumptions, of course). But one thing is certain; Jesus was revealed to be the Messiah and he desired Nathanael to follow him and to show him greater things.

Conclusion

The last statement of Jesus in John chapter one can be seen as the perfect synopsis of the message of the chapter and the message of the book. Jesus Christ was the ultimate revelation of God, where God Himself came in Humana form and decided to live among mankind. Despite taking on a finite human form, He was by nature the infinite God. As a result, to the persons who received Him, they became sons of God. They knew that, despite seeing just a man with their own eyes, their very hearts and spirits were shouting to them that this was God Himself. And as Jesus said to Nathanael, don’t just focus on what you may hear or see now. With Him we will hear and see greater things. With Him, we will see wonders and know deeper the truth of His identity. And knowing our God deeper will allow us to do great exploits.

Thanks for reading this four-part article series on a study of the Gospel of John chapter 1. To read the other parts (Parts 1, 2 and 3), check out the links at the beginning of this article. God bless.