John 1:47Meaning & Commentary from the Church Fathers

Therefore, when Nathanael heard that Christ had appeared from Nazareth, he was troubled and fell into perplexity, finding Philip's report inconsistent with the prophetic prediction. But see how prudent and moderate Nathanael is, even in his perplexity.

He did not immediately say, "You deceive me, Philip, and lie. I do not believe and will not go. I know from the prophecies that Christ must come from Bethlehem, while you say He is from Nazareth. This is not Christ."

No, Nathanael said nothing of the sort. What then? He goes to Christ. On the one hand, by not agreeing that Christ came from Nazareth, he shows a sound knowledge of the Scriptures and circumspection in his actions. On the other hand, by not entirely rejecting Philip's report, he reveals his strong desire for Christ's coming.

For this reason Christ said: "Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile." An Israelite can, of course, be false. But this man is not so, He says. His judgment is impartial. In his words he expresses neither favoritism nor hostility.

It is true that when the Jews were asked, "Where must Christ be born?" they answered, "In Bethlehem," and cited the testimony: "And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah." But they bore this witness before they had seen Christ. When they saw Him, they concealed this testimony out of envy and said: "We know where He is from. But when Christ comes, no one will know where He is from" (Jn 7:27).

Nathanael did not act so. He remained with the opinion about Christ which he had held from the beginning, namely, that He was not from Nazareth. Why, then, do the prophets call Him a Nazarene? Because that was the place of His upbringing and dwelling.

But Christ does not wish to say to Nathanael: "I am not from Nazareth, as Philip announced to you, but from Bethlehem." He does this so as not to cast doubt upon His words from the very beginning. Moreover, even if He had convinced Nathanael of this, it would not yet have been sufficient proof that He was indeed Christ.

Why could He not have come from Bethlehem, like other people born there, without being Christ? Therefore Christ leaves this aside and does what could most draw Nathanael to Him. He shows that He was present at Nathanael's conversation with Philip.

When Nathanael asked Him, "How do You know me?" He says: "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." Behold a firm and steadfast man. When Christ said, "Behold, truly an Israelite," he did not become puffed up by these praises. He was not carried away by the commendations, but stood firm, seeking and examining the truth with still greater care, so as to learn something certain.

Thus he still examines as a man, while Jesus answers as God.

Christ praises and extols Nathanael because he said, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Should he not rather have been condemned for this? No. These were not the words of an unbeliever, nor did they deserve accusation, but praise.

How and why? Because he was more knowledgeable in the prophecies than Philip. He knew from the Scriptures that Christ had to come from Bethlehem and from the village where David was. This opinion prevailed among the Jews, and the prophet had long before foretold it. He cites Mt 2:6 and Mic 5:2.

Therefore, when Nathanael heard that Christ had appeared from Nazareth, he was troubled and fell into perplexity, finding Philip's report inconsistent with the prophetic prediction.

Hear the Lord bearing witness to Nathanael: "Nathanael said to him, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?' Philip said to him, 'Come and see.' Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him and said of him, 'Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile,'" cf. Jn 1:46-47.

A great testimony! For what was said of Nathanael was not said concerning Andrew, nor concerning Peter, nor concerning Philip: "Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile."

What then shall we do, brethren? Should he be first among the apostles? He is not only not found first among the apostles, but he is neither middle nor last among the twelve apostles.

Yet the Son of God gave such testimony concerning him, saying, "Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile."

What is the reason? We find a probable reason in the Lord's indication. We must understand that Nathanael was educated and was a knower of the Law.

For this reason the Lord did not wish to include him among the disciples, since He chose the unlearned, thereby to put the world to shame.

Hear the Apostle saying, "Consider your calling, brethren: not many of you were powerful, not many noble. But God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong, and the base things of the world and the despised and the things that are not, to bring to nothing the things that are," 1 Cor 1:26-28.

If a learned man had been chosen among the apostles, he might perhaps have said that he was chosen because he deserved his election by his learning.

But our Lord Jesus Christ, wishing to tame the proud, did not seek the fisherman through the orator. Rather, through the fisherman the emperor was overcome.

Cyprian was a great orator, but Peter the fisherman came first. Through him not only the orator believed, but also the emperor.

At first no noble man and no learned man was chosen, for "God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong," 1 Cor 1:27.

Thus Nathanael was great and was without guile. Yet he was not chosen for this reason alone: lest it seem to anyone that the Lord chose apostles for Himself from among the learned.

Yet by this very knowledge of the Law it happened that, when he heard "from Nazareth," he was filled with hope. For he had studied Scripture and knew whence the Savior was to come, which the other scribes and Pharisees knew badly.

When he, who knew the Law very well, heard Philip say, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and the prophets wrote, Jesus, the son of Joseph," he knew the Scriptures thoroughly.

Hearing the name Nazareth, he was filled with hope and said, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?"

Now let us look at the rest concerning this man. "Behold, truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile." What does "in whom there is no guile" mean?

Was he perhaps without sin? Was he not sick? Did he not need the Physician? By no means. No one is born here in such a state that he does not need the Physician.

What, then, is the meaning of the phrase, "in whom there is no guile"? Let us look at this a little more attentively, and soon the answer will be opened to us in the name of the Lord.

The Lord says dolum, guile. Everyone who understands Latin words knows what dolus means. It is when one does one thing and thinks another. Attend, beloved.

Dolus, guile, and dolor, pain, are not the same. I say this because many brethren, not very skilled in Latin, say, "Guile, dolus, torments him," instead of saying, "Pain, dolor, torments him."

Dolus means deceit, pretense. When someone carries one thing in the heart and says another, this is guile. It is as though this person had two hearts.

He has, as it were, one chamber of the heart where he sees the truth, and another where he encloses falsehood.

So that you may know what guile is, it is said in the Psalms, "deceitful lips," cf. Ps 11:3. What does "deceitful lips" mean? It continues, "They speak evil in heart and from heart," cf. Ps 11:3.

What does "in heart and from heart" mean, if not "with a double heart"?

Therefore, if there was no guile in Nathanael, the Physician judged him curable, not healthy. To be healthy is one thing, to be curable another, and to be incurable a third.

The one who is sick yet has hope of healing is called curable. The one who is sick and has no hope of healing is called incurable. The one who is already healthy has no need of a physician.

Thus the Physician who came to heal saw that Nathanael was curable, because there was no guile in him.

In what way was there no guile in him? If he is a sinner, he acknowledges himself a sinner. For if someone is a sinner and calls himself righteous, guile is in that man's mouth.

Therefore He praised in Nathanael the fact that he acknowledged his sins. He did not judge him sinless.

When the Pharisees, who thought themselves righteous, blamed the Lord because the Physician mingled with the sick, they said, "See with whom He shares a table, with publicans and sinners."

The Physician answered the madmen: "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners," cf. Mt 9:11-13.

That is, He said, "Because you call yourselves righteous though you are sinful, and because you think yourselves healthy though you are sick, you refuse healing and are deprived of health."

Thus the Pharisee who invited the Lord to eat with him seemed healthy to himself. But a sick woman broke into that house, though she had not been invited there.

Boldly desiring to be healed, she approached neither the Lord's head nor His hand, but His feet. She began to wash them with tears, wipe them with her hair, kiss them, and anoint them with ointment.

At the Lord's feet the sinful woman found rest.

The Pharisee reclining there began, as though he were healthy, to blame the Physician. He said to himself, "If He were a prophet, He would know what kind of woman is touching His feet," cf. Lk 7:36-39.

He suspected that the Lord did not know what kind of woman she was, because He did not thrust her away so that she would not touch Him with unclean hands.

But He knew what kind of woman she was. He allowed Himself to be touched, so that the very touch might bring healing.

The Lord, seeing the Pharisee's heart, proposed a parable to him. A certain creditor had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, the other fifty. Since they had nothing with which to pay, he forgave them both.

"Which of them will love him more?" cf. Lk 7:41-42. Simon the Pharisee answered Jesus, "I suppose, Lord, the one to whom he forgave more."

Jesus, turning to the woman, said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house, and you gave Me no water for My feet. But she has washed My feet with tears and wiped them with her hair.

You gave Me no kiss. But she has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil. But she has anointed My feet with ointment.

Therefore I tell you, her many sins are forgiven, for she loved much. But he to whom little is forgiven loves little," cf. Lk 7:44-47.

That is, He said, "You are gravely sick, but think yourself healthy. You think little is forgiven you, while you owe more. Since there was no guile in that woman, she deserved healing."

What does it mean that there was no guile in her? It means that she confessed her sins.

This is what the Lord praises in Nathanael: there was no guile in him. Many Pharisees, however, were full of transgressions, called themselves righteous, and carried guile within themselves. Therefore they could not be healed.

When Nathanael approached Jesus and heard the words, "Behold, truly an Israelite in whom there is no guile," he was struck. Jesus had never seen him, yet spoke of him as of an acquaintance. In amazement he asks, "How do You know me?"

Honesty and uprightness should be the distinctive features of the character of a genuine Israelite, and such was Nathanael. He does not pretend to believe what he does not yet really believe. He says directly what is in his soul, and he speaks with complete sincerity.

By these words the Lord does not indicate that Nathanael has no defects of soul or spirit. He says only that he is an honest and truthful man.