요한복음 1:44-45 KRV

Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary - John 1:43-51

We have here the call of Philip and Nathanael. I. Philip was called immediately by Christ himself, not as Andrew, who was directed to Christ by John, or Peter, who was invited by his brother. God has various methods of bringing his chosen ones home to himself. But, whatever means he uses, he is not tied to any. 1. Philip was called in a preventing was: Jesus findeth Philip. Christ sought us, and found us, before we made any enquiries after him. The name Philip is of Greek origin, and much used... read more

William Barclay

William Barclay's Daily Study Bible - John 1:43-51

1:43-51 On the next day Jesus determined to go away to Galilee; and there he found Philip. Jesus said to him: "Follow me!" Now Philip came from Bethsaida, which was the town from which Andrew and Peter came. Philip went and found Nathanael and said to him: "We have found the One about whom Moses wrote in the law, and about whom the prophets spoke--I mean Jesus, the son of Joseph, the man from Nazareth." Nathanael said to him: "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him: "Come... read more

John Gill

John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary - John 1:44

Now Philip was of Bethsaida ,.... A town on the lake of Gennesaret, afterwards made a city by Philip the tetrarch, and called Julias, after the name of Caesar's daughter F13 Joseph. Antiqu. l. 18. c. 3. : it was a fishing town, and had its name from thence; and the disciples that were of it, were of this business: the city of Andrew and Peter ; or "Simon", as read the Syriac and Persic versions: three apostles were called out of this place, as mean, and wicked, as it was; see ... read more

John Gill

John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary - John 1:45

Philip findeth Nathanael ,.... Who was of Cana of Galilee, John 21:2 and where, it is very likely, Philip found him; since we quickly read of Jesus, and his disciples being there. This man is thought, by some, to be the same with Bartholomew; and so he is called Bartholomew, in a Syriac dictionary F15 Bar Bahlui apud Castell Lex. Polyglott. col. 2437. ; and the rather, since he and Philip are always mentioned together in the account of the apostles, Matthew 10:3 . And certain it... read more

Adam Clarke

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible - John 1:45

Nathanael - This apostle is supposed to be the same with Bartholomew, which is very likely, for these reasons That the evangelists who mention Bartholomew say nothing of Nathanael; and that St. John, who speaks of Nathanael, says nothing of Bartholomew. No notice is taken any where of Bartholomew's vocation, unless his and that of Nathanael mentioned here be the same. The name of Bartholomew is not a proper name; it signifies the son of Ptolomy; and Nathanael might have been his own... read more

John Calvin

John Calvin's Commentary on the Bible - John 1:44

Verse 44 44.Was of Bethsaida. The name of the city appears to have been mentioned on purpose, that the goodness of God to the three Apostles may be more illustriously displayed. We know how severely, on other occasions, Christ threatens and curses that city, (Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13.) Accordingly, when God brought into favor with him some out of a nation so ungodly and wicked, we ought to view it in the same light as if they had been brought out of the lowest hell. And when Christ, after... read more

John Calvin

John Calvin's Commentary on the Bible - John 1:45

Verse 45 45.Philip findeth Nathanael. Though proud men despise these feeble beginnings of the Church, yet we ought to perceive in them a brighter display of the divine glory, than if the condition of the Kingdom of Christ had been in every respect, from the outset, splendid and magnificent; for we know to how rich a harvest this small seed afterwards grew. Again, we see inPhilip the same desire of building which formerly appeared in Andrew. His modesty, too, is remarkable, in desiring and... read more

Spence, H. D. M., etc.

The Pulpit Commentary - John 1:1-51

The phrase, "according to," has been thought by some to suggest a type of doctrine or teaching with which the document might be supposed to harmonize, and therefore to set aside the idea of personal authenticity by its very form. This interpretation, seeing it applies to Mark and Luke as well as to John and Matthew, would lose its meaning; for Mark and Luke, by numerous traditionary notices, have been continuously credited, not with having personally set any special type of doctrine before... read more

Spence, H. D. M., etc.