John 1:45

Philip findeth Nathaniel, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

All that Philip here said of Jesus is true: (1) that Moses and the prophets wrote of him, (2) that he was of Nazareth, and (3) that he was the son of Joseph, although the latter was true legally, not actually. Thus, any effort to force a "conflict" between John and the synoptics is nothing but a device of unbelief. Being the legal son of Joseph, "the husband of Mary" (Matthew 1:16), Jesus was quite correctly called Joseph's son, for it was through Joseph that Jesus was heir to the throne of David. Furthermore, Luke stated that "Jesus ... being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23) was about thirty years of age when he began to teach, proving that at this time such a supposition was held by many. In the light of this, is it honest to say that John contradicts the synoptics, two of which (in the verses noted above) plainly refer to Jesus as the son of Joseph? The critics are wrong. Note too that this reference gives the words of Philip, not of the apostle John, suggesting the possibility that at the time Philip spoke he might indeed have thought that Jesus was actually Joseph's son, and that he was then not aware of anything supernatural in regard to Jesus' birth. On the very first day of Philip's discipleship, it would be fair to assume that there were some things that he did not yet know regarding Jesus.

CONCERNING NATHANIEL

Nathaniel, meaning the gift of God, is thought to be another name for Bartholomew, one of the Twelve. Hendriksen wrote:

John never mentions Bartholomew; the synoptics never mention Nathaniel; and thus it is altogether probable that the Nathaniel of John is the Bartholomew of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Nathaniel being his chief name and Bartholomew indicating his filial relationship, meaning son of Tolmai.[49]

All Jewish names beginning with "Bar-" are patronymic, indicating parentage, such names including: Bartimaeus, Barabbas, Bar-jesus, Barnabas, and Bar-Jonah, the latter being the surname given Peter by Christ himself (Matthew 16:17). If, then, Nathaniel was the son of Tolmai, it would be no strange thing at all if the synoptics referred to him as Bartholomew. John, in going back to the very beginning of things, would naturally have used the name Nathaniel. This variation is no evidence at all against the apostleship of Nathaniel. As Ryle observed:

The objection that Nathaniel's name is never mentioned by Matthew, Mark, or Luke, is of no weight. No one of the three tells us that Peter was called Cephas; and only Matthew gives Jude (the brother of James) the name of Lebbaeus.[50]

If Nathaniel was not indeed an apostle, the same man as Bartholomew, how can it be explained that Christ appeared after his resurrection to a group of seven, and, of the five named, all were apostles except Nathaniel? That such a list of named apostles included one who was not an apostle is extremely unlikely (John 21:2).

Nathaniel was "of Cana in Galilee" (John 2:12); but this does not mean that he was the bridegroom at Cana when Jesus changed the water into wine, as tradition says, nor that he was one of the disciples on the road to Emmaus. As Goodspeed said of the sixth apostle:

Doubtless there was much to be said of him and his labors, but it had not struck the imagination or engaged the interest (of the Gospel writers). Yet it was precisely the quiet, patient work of such obscure figures that mainly won the gospel battle in the world of the first century as it does also in the twentieth.[51]

Jesus called Nathaniel an "Israelite indeed," meaning that he was of the "seed of Abraham," that is, the spiritual seed, and not merely of fleshly descent. This distinction between the genuine children of Abraham and the fleshly nation that claimed the patriarch as their ancestor is overwhelmingly significant and formed the major premise of Paul's letter to the Romans. By such a designation, Christ implied that it was something unusual and that the vast majority of the outward Israel were not true sons of Abraham.

[49] William Hendriksen, op. cit., p. 20.

[50] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 88.

[51] Edgar J. Goodspeed, op. cit., p. 41.