Two of John’s disciples began following Jesus, just as he turned to return to Galilee. This was the second day since Jesus’ baptism (John 1:35-37), and after he and the two men following him arrived at the place Jesus was staying (perhaps an inn), the two were invited to stay with Jesus, because it was late in the day. One of the two was called Andrew, and he had a brother, named Simon. He went and fetched his brother (among others who were traveling to Galilee from Bethabara, where John baptized. Andrew told Peter he had found the Messiah. When Jesus saw Simon, he told him that he would be called Peter, and the three stayed with Jesus that night (John 1:40-42).
On the day following, or the third day since his baptism, Jesus decided to go to Galilee. Once again Jesus was traveling toward Galilee, but before doing so he found Philip (John 1:43). Whether Jesus knew Philip before this or whether Andrew and Peter told him about Philip, who was of Bethsaida, their hometown, isn’t clear (John 1:44). Nevertheless, there must have been some discourse with the other three over Jesus being the Messiah, because when Jesus told Philip: “Follow me,” Philip went and told a man named Nathaniel that he had found the Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:45).
At this point, the reader is informed that Nazareth wasn’t a place that had a good reputation (John 1:46). Its name seems to have been derived from the Hebrew netser (H5342), and its only reference to the Messiah is at Isaiah 11:1 – “there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch (H5342) shall grow out of his roots” (emphasis mine). Whatever derogatory reputation Nazareth may have obtained in its history isn’t clear, but perhaps it stems from the idea that the seed of David settled there, but not one of his descendants had ever arisen to aid the Jews in their seasons of trouble with their oppressors. If this idea is logical, then Nathaniel’s comment about what good thing could come from there is understandable (John 1:46).
One thing I find interesting about this section of chapter one in John’s Gospel narrative is how much space is given to Nathanael (John 1:45-51), a man unnamed elsewhere, except in John 21:2. So, we have him at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry and at the very end, but he isn’t mentioned again, elsewhere in any of the Gospel narratives. This leads to the question: could he have been known by another name, and was this name, Nathanael, a kind of nickname, like Peter was for Andrew’s brother, Simon? The name, Nathanael, means given (or gift) of God, and some scholars believe he is Bartholomew, one of the Twelve.[1] There isn’t a shred of evidence in scripture that would support this understanding, but it is an opinion held by many. Still, the amount of space given to Nathanael in the first chapter of John’s Gospel seems out of place for a man (Bartholomew), whose only mentions are in the four lists of the Apostles (Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13).
When Jesus greeted Nathanael, he described him as an Israelite without any guile (John 1:47). Surprised, Nathanael wondered how Jesus knew him, and in reply, Jesus told him he saw him under the fig tree prior to Philip calling him (John 1:48). Oddly enough, this was enough evidence to change Nathanael’s original impression of Jesus (John 1:46), and he declared that Jesus truly was the Messiah (John 1:49). Jesus seems amused with Nathanael’s reply (John 1:40) and declares that he would see greater evidence than this that he was the Messiah, saying he would witness angels ascending and descending upon Jesus’ head (John 1:50-51).
My point is this. Jesus’ mention of the angels is a metaphor that suggests Jacob’s dream of a ladder that reached to heaven, where Jacob witnessed angels ascending and descending on it (Genesis 28:12). The name James is the Greek translation for Jacob, and an ancient church document, the Epistula Apostolorum, written probably about the middle of the 2nd century AD, lists Nathanael with the other Apostles about where James, the son of Alphaeus, should be mentioned. If we can believe this is logical, implying that Nathanael is James, the son of Alphaeus, then, here, in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, we have Jesus calling his three leading Apostles, Peter, Philip and James the Less, just as he was beginning his public ministry. While the Synoptics have Jesus calling all Twelve, John records the circumstances of his calling the three leaders. Their positions in the four lists of the Twelve never vary. They always occupy the first, fifth and ninth positions in those lists. On the other hand, the positions of the other Apostles do vary, but only within the three groups of four. That is, Andrew, and the two sons of Zebedee are always listed with Peter, but vary in order, and so on with the Apostles listed with Philip and James.
________________________________________________
[1] The principal argument for Bartholomew is that he is: first, never mentioned by John. However, neither does John mention James or John (the sons of Zebedee, Matthew, James the Less or Jude. Secondly, Bartholomew is always numbered close to Philip in the four lists of the Apostles, but so is Matthew. Finally, a number of Apostles have more than one name, but this could also be mentioned as evidence of one of them to be Nathaniel (Matthew, Jude etc.). The point is: there is absolutely no evidence for Bartholomew being Nathaniel. It’s simply a guess. But, why Nathaniel? Why not simply say it is James? I believe it is, because the Gospel of John was written prior the the slaying of James the Less (cir. 62 AD). The writers of the Gospel narratives were very protective of the Apostles and hid their names as much as possible, especially if they ministered among the Jews, as did James.
Smoodock's Blog 