Page images
PDF
EPUB

person, a man of faith and prayer, a real Israelite, while most of his neighbors have nothing but the name and outward form of Israelites." Scott." One who is really an Israelite, and not by birth only, but one worthy of the name. One who possesses the spirit, the piety, and the integrity, which befit a man who is really a Jew, who fears God, and obeys his law."-Barnes.

It may be true that Nathanael possessed, in an eminent degree, the virtuous qualities which are thus usually ascribed to him. But it is very questionable, to say the least, whether our Lord's remark was intended, or understood, to have any such general reference to his character, as is here supposed.

1. Such a mode of speaking was not customary with our Saviour. He was not given to compliment. There is no other instance on record of his pronouncing such unqualified commendation of a man's character, as this interpretation supposes. When to Simon, the son of Jona, he gave the name of Cephas, "which is by interpretation a stone," he but prophetically hinted at Peter's future standing and usefulness in the church, without intimating that he approved of everything as unexceptionable in his moral and spiritual character. Time and trial showed that there were some very irregular and brittle seams in this stone at which it was liable to split; and our Saviour was never known to express an opinion of men which did not hold sound. He sometimes spoke in high terms of particular instances of faith, as in the case of the centurion, the Syro-Phenician woman, and others; but he uniformly refrained from general eulogy. It was not his manner to indulge in oriental hyperbole and flattery; but he was habitually sparing and guarded in his encomiums upon character. And if the interpretation about to be given be correct, he did not depart from his usual reserve in the case of Nathanael.

2. It was not necessary to our Lord's purpose, that he should be understood as speaking of Nathanael's general character. That purpose evidently was to make it apparent that he knew what was in man; that he could read the hidden thoughts and emotions of the soul afar off. He was aiming by this means to produce in the mind of Nathanael the conviction which was wanting, that he was indeed the Messiah, as Philip had just stated. Philip had said to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph; implying that Jesus was a native of Nazareth, as in truth he was not, and as he should not be, according to the Scriptures, if he were indeed the Messiah. For Moses in the law had said, that Christ should come out of Judah, and the prophets had assigned Bethlehem as the place of his nativity. On this point Nathanael's mind labored; for he saw a discrepancy between Philip's statement and what he knew the prophets had written. Hence the objection that he raised, "Can any good thing come out of Naza

reth?" There is no reason to suppose, according to the common notion, that he intended to speak contemptuously of Nazareth, as being a place of evil notoriety, especially when we consider that he himself was also of Galilee, and would naturally wish to avoid speaking ill of it, if he could. But his meaning doubtless was, "Can it be that any good thing like this, should come out of Nazareth, a place which is never mentioned by the prophets as destined to such a distinction? The Scriptures do not warrant us to expect it." A similar objection was made on the same ground by others. While some said, "Of a truth this is the prophet;" and others, "This is the Christ;" there were yet others who asked, "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scriptures said that Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? So there was a division among the people because of him." Nathanael's objection, therefore, did not arise from prejudice against Nazareth, nor from that wayward skepticism in which a man sometimes braces himself when he is not willing to be convinced. But it arose from his correct knowledge of what the Scripture had said on the subject, to which the statement of Philip, he perceived did not correspond. Our Saviour not choosing to explain the facts in his history, by which this discrepancy might have been reconciled, aimed to convince Nathanael on other and more substantial grounds, and in spite of the objection that lay in his mind. To accomplish this, it was not necessary that he should give a general description of his character. Enough, and much better suited to the purpose was it, to fix upon something definite, something of recent occurrence, and fresh in mind, by which to convince him that he discerned his inmost thoughts and feelings, and that, therefore, he was no ordinary man, but was omniscient and Divine. This he did, as we intend to show.

3. If Nathanael was a man of sincere and humble piety, as no doubt he was, he would naturally have shrunk from receiving such an encomium from Christ, as is commonly understood. He would have felt and expressed himself to be unworthy of it. Good men are usually most sensible of their deficiencies, and feel that he who searches the heart, and knows the whole life, must see much in them that is sinful and unlovely. If Nathanael had understood our Lord's words as many do, he would have been likely to say within himself, "Surely this can be no prophet sent from God who pronounces upon my character in such terms as these." He would have felt unprepared to accept the commendation, as just and true; and his suspicion that Philip had misjudged would have been increased rather than diminished. But instead of this, he seemed to see at once the pertinency and justness of the remark as applied to himself, and to manifest a consciousness that it was simply according to fact. His modesty was not offended nor emTHIRD SERIES, VOL. VI., NO. 1

10

barrassed. He expressed no objection or misgiving, as if he felt that this was saying too much of him. His whole manner indicates that he did not understand our Lord's meaning, as it is generally understood.

4. His question of surprise also, "whence knowest thou me ?" is not what we should expect under such conditions. It is put in the present tense. He does not ask, "whence hast thou known me?" or "How didst thou become acquainted with my character and manner of life?" But he speaks as if he felt that Jesus was that moment looking into his inmost soul, and observing its frame and spirit; as if he had just been scrutinizing the private thoughts and emotions, and desires of his heart. Whence knowest thou me?" But understood as it commonly is, the question gives him somewhat an air of self-complacency, as if he considered himself quite entitled to unqualified praise, while his only wonder is how sus should know that he so well deserved it.

[ocr errors]

5. Christ's reply to this question shows that neither he nor Nathanael, had any reference at all to general character in what they said, but only to some particular act or experience just then passed, or passing. "Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig-tree, I saw thee." This clearly limits the meaning of the conversation on both sides to the act of private devotion in which Nathanael was engaged under the fig-tree when Philip called him. This explains definitely to what our Saviour referred in his first remark. This was a complete and satisfactory answer to Nathanael's question, and defines the purport and the limit of that question.

6. There is a manifest want of fitness and propriety in the remarks that followed, on the common interpretation. Nathaneal's objection was overcome, though not explained, by this striking proof that Jesus had perfect knowledge of the hidden exercises of the heart, and he immediately exclaimed, "Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel." Our Saviour's answer still points to the scene of private devotion under the fig-tree as the particular subject of discourse. "Because I said unto thee, 1 saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these." He says nothing to make it appear that any reference had been made to general character, or that Nathanael believed because he so understood the matter; but rather that he believed solely because he perceived that our Lord had been an all-discerning witness of his frame of spirit under the figtree, and had so perfectly described him as he was there, where he was sure that no eye beheld him, but the eye of Him that seeth in secret. The meaning of our Lord's remark, therefore, must be restricted to that scene of devotion, and interpreted accordingly. His own words, and the whole drift of the conversation, plainly

confine it to that; nor need we look further for a satisfactory solution of it.

7. Once more, as the subject is generally viewed, our Saviour's concluding assertion in the 51st verse, has no natural and obvious connection with what precedes. We look in vain to see how it grows out of the attending circumstances and conversation; and we wonder what should have led him, just then, to speak of " the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." The remark seems unaccountably abrupt and mysterious. And, indeed the whole picture, as usually explained, wears an air of obscurity and unnaturalness. We are not satisfied. We cannot repress the feeling that there must be some more fitting key to it, which we have not yet found. The Evangelist's account of the interview is concise, touching only upon the prominent peculiarities of it; but if we attend carefully to what he says, and to the circumstances and connection in which he says it, at the same time keeping before the mind the leading object in view, to set forth the divinity of Christ, we shall find that the outline of the draft is complete, and all its parts consistent with each other.

Nathanael and his pious friends had come to attend upon the ministry of John, as he was preaching and baptising on the banks of the Jordan. Jesus himself had also come, to honor the mission of his forerunner, to receive baptism at his hands, and public testimony from his lips that he was the Divinely promised Messiah. The great topic of thought, feeling, conversation, reading, and prayer, among these friends on this occasion, doubtless was, the speedy appearing of Christ, and the blessings and glories of his reign. John had announced his coming, as nigh at hand, and every reflecting and pious mind was alert with expectation; every heart was fuil; the Scriptures were searched and discussed with intense interest, in reference to the subject in question; and godly persons were incited to pray with unusual fervor and faith. The state of feeling that existed among them, we must suppose, was not unlike that which prevails in seasons of great religious awakening in modern times. Two of these friends were present when John pointed out Jesus as "the Lamb of God," and followed him. One of them, Andrew, hastens to find his own brother, Simon, acquaints him with the joyful news, and brings him to Jesus. The next day, Philip becomes acquainted with Jesus; he also is convinced, and follows him. Full of the discovery, he in turn hastens to find Nathanael, to communicate the intelligence to him. But Nathanael was just then absorbed in private devotions under the fig-tree, wrestling with God in prayer, as did Jacob of old; and perhaps having specially in mind, at that very time, the character and example of Jacob. It was not uncommon to choose such a retreat for reading the Scriptures, meditation and prayer. "Passages from the rabbinical books might be multiplied to show

that the Jews were in the habit of studying the law and meditating upon religious subjects under shady trees." Philip, on finding Nathanael in his retirement, says to him, "We have found him of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." Nathanael raises the objection, that according to Moses and the prophets, Nazareth was not the place from whence so good a thing was to be expected. Philip was not prepared to answer this objection, nor does it appear that he attempted it. Overruled, however, by the inward conviction that Jesus must be the person foretold in the sacred writings, he cuts short the conversation by saying, "Come and see." Feeling confident that on acquaintance his friend would be convinced as well as himself, Nathanael yields to the solicitation, and accompanies him; but at the same time he carries along with him the doubts and misgivings which had arisen in his mind. As he comes within hearing, Jesus, knowing all the circumstances, takes him completely by surprise, saying to those that stood by, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! What did he mean by this remark; and how was he understood? Take for the key that the leading allusion throughout is to the patriarch Jacob, and we may be able to slide the bolt.

66

1. What is an Israelite indeed-alnoos 'Iogankins-an Israelite in the true sense of the word? What is the primitive and genuine signification of the term? The answer is to be found in Gen. 32: 28. Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed." Here we learn the original use of the word, and the peculiar significance attached to it-a prince with God; or, a successful wrestler with God. And it was evidently in the genuine original sense of the term that our Saviour intended to apply it; as is indicated by the adjunct 70s. An "Israelite indeed," then, is one who wrestles with God in prayer, and prevails. This was the very act in which Nathanael had just been engaged under the fig-tree. The circumstances of the times, the announcement of John that the kingdom of Heaven was nigh at hand, and the high-wrought state of feeling that now pervaded every pious heart, naturally lead us to suppose that he had been pleading with God that "the desire of all nations" might come, and that he might be permitted to see him before he died, that so he might have it to say, as did Simeon, "Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen thy salvation." And in that prayer he prevailed; for within the same hour he was indeed permitted to see the Lord's Christ, though at first he knew him not. The exclamation, "Behold an Israelite indeed!" so understood, mirrored back Nathanael to himself in a moment, and flashed conviction upon his mind that Jesus knew him as no other than a Divine and omniscient Being could know him. It was like saying,

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »