“Now here is a genuine son of Israel—a man of complete integrity.” John 1:47, 48. A layman's commentary on the book of John.

 In a sense, Nathanael started the fight by saying, “can any good thing come out of Nazareth.” Whether Jesus perceived that Nathanael was initiating a fight or not when the two of them met, is irrelevant. I assume that Jesus would have been sinning if He had become retaliatory; it would have been if I had done it.

Philip had said to Nathanael to come and see; the next thing we see is Philip's friend walking toward Jesus; that alone speaks volumes.

“Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" John 1:47 NKJV

The NLT expresses what Jesus said in this manner.

“Now here is a genuine son of Israel—a man of complete integrity.”

It is apparent that Jesus already had a small group near him; they, of course, were Jews.

Lacking an audience and then going on a rant, while looking up at the clouds as though you were talking to God, tends to make you look like a fool. I can envision Jesus turning to those around him, drawing their attention, and then directing them to pay attention to Nathanael. At this point, if He says, “Now here is a genuine son of Israel,” this statement can be taken several directions. On that note, Jesus adds how Nathanael is one in whom there is no deceit, or, a man of complete integrity.

If Jesus decided to square off with “ a man of no deceit.” Wouldn't you be wondering how He could possibly know anything about this man and his background. Considering that they did not have high speed internet, cells phones, nor computers - checking someone's background would have bordered on impossible, unless of course you are actively hearing the Father's voice.

To refer to Nathanael as an Israelite, to me, is peculiar. The Word Study dictionary had this to say:

"Israelite" is a name of honor. It is to be distinguished from both "Hebrew [Hebraíos {G1445}]" being, at least in NT times, a Jew with purely national sympathies who spoke the native Hebrew. or Aramaic dialect of Palestine, and "Jew [Ioudaíos {G2453}]", one who belonged to the ancient race wherever he might be settled and whatever his views. However, every Jew regarded himself as a true Israelite and prided himself on the privileges which he as a member of the favored nation had received when other nations had been passed by. Paul refers to these privileges when he describes his "kinsmen according to the flesh" as Israelites to whom "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" apply” (Rom_9:4).”

So, it seems that Nathanael would already have an attitude of pride.

Paul, in writing to the church in Rome, conveyed the idea that he understood the high mindedness.

“For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises;” (Romans 9:3-4 NKJV)

John 1:48 enforces the suspicion, on the part of Nathanael, that Jesus might have had background information about him. He did not, but Jesus did have an understanding and communication with the Father, that surpasses anything I have ever experienced.

Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."
(John 1:48 NKJV)

You can almost feel the alarm in his voice. Jesus, it tells us, answered Nathanael by saying, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you."

We see something comparable in John 2:24.

“But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew all about people.”
(John 2:24 NLT)

Who is He talking about and why didn't He trust them?

The answer lies in John 2:23.

“Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did.”
(John 2:23 NKJV)

So, with them, the Jews, in Jerusalem, at the Passover, many “believed” in His name when they saw the signs which He did.

Interesting, but I saw something comparable when the Vineyard church movement erupted in Southern California in the early 1990s. John Wimber, the pastor of the Anaheim Vineyard (church), displayed a willingness to give the Holy Spirit the freedom to have it's way.

Little did we know that we would only have John for about seven more years. I suppose it would be appropriate for me to tell you that Pastor Wimber began this quest for the Holy Spirit while holding down a pastorate in the Quaker church. (I knew nothing about John Wimber back then.) Wikipedia has an extensive background on Pastor Wimber on their website. John Wimber - Wikipedia One of the things that alarmed me was how profoundly he acceded himself to Fuller Theological Seminary. To be honest I know little about the Seminary, but I have had abominable interactions with several people who did attended Fuller. One of those religious zealots held a Doctorate from that school and was nothing short of rude, while at the same time he was pushing our small church body to prepare for a global collapse due to Y2K scares; the other human example had attained a Masters degree from the seminary and took great pleasure in talking over, at least, my head.

The affects of the Holy Spirit was seen and felt in the lives of many of the people who came to the Anaheim Vineyard. Sure, there is no doubt that many came because it was a good show, but best of all, church was not boring (having spent most of my life in organized church I can attest to the fact that much of what happened there put me to sleep.) My parents began to follow their sons (me and a couple of others) as we were going down to Anaheim to jump into the river.

Question: Was baby Jesus born with the Spirit Of God fully developed within Him to the point that He had all knowledge of everything going on around Him?

We find the answer in Philippians.

“Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross.”
(Philippians 2:5-8 BSB)

Paul describes Jesus as:

• Emptying Himself.

  He was born as baby who, like every other baby, needed a mother to take care of His every need.

• The NLT tells us “Though he was God, he did not think of equality with God as something to cling to. (Philippians 2:6 NLT).

  When would Jesus have had this thought process? The only place would be prior to creation when He was with the Father. So we can correctly assume that He was born at the lowest of ranks, just as we are. Let's assume that you are born in India and find yourself born into the caste system. If you cannot wipe the spit off your own face or wipe off your own behind then you are the lowest of ranks. By the way, your caste system does not guarantee your place in eternity; you still have to accept the price that Jesus paid for your behalf.

• While this next aspect tends to apply to someone with at least a little bit of maturity, He took on the form of a servant.

  We, as a men's group, watched five seasons of the Chosen. Out of all the episodes we watched the only thing that leaned toward Jesus being a servant applied to the evening in the upper room when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples.

  If being born through natural human interaction is what made Him a servant, at least servants have the right to resign. Did Jesus have the right to resign? Certainly He did, but for our sakes He chose not to.

  Once again, Paul explains in his letter to the church at Philippi.

  “Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form, he humbled himself in obedience to God and died a criminal’s death on a cross.”
  (Philippians 2:7-8 NLT)

  Jesus, because of Satan's temptations, had the opportunity to resign, much like Adam did; the difference being, Adam submitted to temptation, Jesus, did not.

It is safe to assume that Jesus was born normal, just as we are. If He had the ability to hear from the Father, it is something that developed; and that demonstrates that we can develop those gifts of the spirit, just as Jesus did.

A commentary on John 1:45-46. We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph

 As I read my Bible, especially the gospels, I find that I am frequently lost as I try to put the narratives into a chronological order (it is not mandatory to have things in a tight, chronological order, but I am a visual learner, and it is easier if I can visualize what is going on in the narrative).

Having watched the entirety of “The Chosen” season five, we see scenes and timelines that may not have occurred as portrayed by the producers. The reality is that “The Chosen” may have created a false narrative.

Will that false impartation corrupt the word of God?

Only if you are fragile in your knowledge of the scriptures, and there is only one person who can cure that, you.

I am sure I have mentioned this before, but John wrote this gospel with the Jewish community in mind. As we dive back into John, we will soon crash into verse 46, where Nathanael makes his sarcastic comment that implies that Jesus is probably as low as the reputation that Nazareth carries. He will soon find out how wrong he is.

That having been said, let's jump into John 1:45.

John 1:45 NAS95 “Philip *found Nathanael and *said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

Not that it is important, but Philip was from Bethsaida, which is in the Northern region of Galilee.

Why is any of that important?

Because, as we begin to learn about Jesus, we find Him in the Southern regions of Galilee, where we also find John the baptizer, as he pursued adequate water to immerse those who came to him to be baptized. Jesus came to John, His cousin, to be baptized. Only God knows where Nathanael was, but Philip pursued him and found him.

Pay attention to what Philip had to say about the Messiah.

“ We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

These words were not peculiar to Nathanael, and he comprehended immediately what Philip was trying to tell him. Nathanael's response was not in opposition to what Philip said, but in I have come to learn that sarcasm is a classic Jewish manner of conversation, Nathanael's sarcastic response was, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?”

In what ways do the scriptures validate this statement?

Malachi 3:16 NAS95 Then those who feared the LORD spoke to one another, and the LORD gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the LORD and who esteem His name.

These people were not considered to be the church, for the Holy Spirit had not yet been given; therefore, perhaps we can set their words aside for a moment.

If we look at the book of Acts, where Saul of Tarsus (soon to be recognized as Paul) has been preaching the gospel of Jesus, the Messiah.

Saul of Tarsus, consider the fear that name must have struck in the hearts of Christ's followers back then. Not quite an extradition, but if you go north, it will be more comfortable for us in Jerusalem.

Acts 9:30-31 NAS95 But when the brethren learned of it, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him away to Tarsus. (31) So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria enjoyed peace, being built up; and going on in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it continued to increase.

When it says, “Him of whom Moses in the Law … wrote,” we immediately think about the “law,” and we frequently associate that law with Paul. It is not that Paul wrote out laws, but his words frequently tell things like Christ followers don't act that way.

Law: it is the Strong's Greek #G3551 nómos; gen. nómou, masc noun from némō (n.f., see aponémō [G632]), to divide among, parcel out, allot.

Thayer's Definitions of Law: 1) anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command. 1a) of any law whatsoever. 1a1) a law or rule producing a state approved of God. 1a1a) by the observance of which is approved of God. 1a2) a precept or injunction.

The law and some of the defining narrative that surrounds that law began in Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:14-15 NLT Then the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all animals, domestic and wild. You will crawl on your belly, groveling in the dust as long as you live. (15) And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will strike your head, and you will strike his heel.”

You should recognize by now that the serpent is Satan. The seed of the woman is Jesus, the Messiah. Striking someone's heel will definitely hurt, but crushing someone's head will bring about death.

The offspring referred to in Genesis 3 is the seed that leads to Jesus. Matthew's gospel spells out the ancestry from Abram to Joseph, the husband of Mary.

Matthew 1:1-3 NLT This is a record of the ancestors of Jesus the Messiah, a descendant of David and of Abraham: (2) Abraham was the father of Isaac. Isaac was the father of Jacob. Jacob was the father of Judah and his brothers. (3) Judah was the father of Perez and Zerah (whose mother was Tamar). Perez was the father of Hezron. Hezron was the father of Ram.

This narrative continues:

Matthew 1:15-17 NLT Eliud was the father of Eleazar. Eleazar was the father of Matthan. Matthan was the father of Jacob. (16) Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary. Mary gave birth to Jesus, who is called the Messiah. (17) All those listed above include fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the Babylonian exile, and fourteen from the Babylonian exile to the Messiah.

Let's settle some arguments: Joseph, although it is clear that he is the husband of Mary, in Matthew's gospel, this assertion that Mary is the mother, should clarify that Joseph had NO relations with Mary, and was NOT the biological father of Jesus.

Luke 1:27 makes it clear that even up to the birth of Jesus, Mary was a virgin. The most amazing part of this story is that Mary was also of the bloodline of Judah.

I realize many of you read something like this, and all you get is a headache, but watch what happens next.

Matthew 1:18 NLT This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit.

The Sermon Bible Commentary says,

"Nathanael’s prejudice was but the giving voice to a fault that is as wide as humanity, and which we have every day of our lives to fight with, not only in regard of religious matters, but in regard of all others—namely, the habit of estimating people, and their work, and their wisdom, and their power, by the class to which they are supposed to belong."

While all that is often debilitating and true, here is something we seem to refuse to acknowledge and accept. Mary, in the face of quite probably death by stoning, stood her ground and told the community that the baby was God's baby.

Yes, these people had a better understanding of the impact of angels in their lives than we do, but we are so practical and judgmental. What, you might ask, is the practical side of a pregnant girl trying to tell us that NO man was involved in making this baby? Practicality tells us Joseph would be the father, but being older, wiser, and having an outstanding reputation as a "teacher," it did not make sense that he would crush his reputation.

If you think this train of thought is outrageous, consider that Joseph took his young, pregnant wife to Bethlehem, Joseph's hometown, where he had kinfolk. None of them would let him in their house. Because it was taxation time, the "hotel" was filled, and the two of them had to share a place where animals - sheep- were fed and pooped.

A portion of the evidence of that seed is demonstrated in Genesis 22, where God spoke to Abraham, but we understand that it is Moses, many years later, who is writing down the history and defining statements that enfold the law, we assume, word for word, between God, Abram, and all the patriarchs throughout the ages after that.

The writer of the book of Hebrews tells us that we are to take this by faith.

Hebrews_11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Hebrews_11:3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.

Hebrews_11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks.

Hebrews_11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

But it is not a blind faith, for the substantiating evidence is scattered throughout the scriptures.

Genesis 22:14-18 NASB Abraham called the name of that place The LORD Will Provide, as it is said to this day, "In the mount of the LORD it will be provided." (15) Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, (16) and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, (17) indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies. (18) "In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice."

We have spent an ample amount of time looking at Nathanael's response to what Philip said, but I want to touch on one last thing before moving on.

John 1:46 NASB Nathanael said to him, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" Philip *said to him, "Come and see."

I mentioned how Jesus could have been referred to and treated as an illegitimate child. Look at the demands placed upon an illegitimate child by the law.

Deuteronomy 23:2 NASB "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.

Was Jesus illegitimate? The answer is NO, but do you think that mattered to the townsfolk?

Strong's # definition of illegitimate is the Hebrew word mamzêr. It is from an unused root meaning to alienate; a mongrel, that is, born of a Jewish father and a heathen mother: - bastard. I mentioned how none of Joseph's kinfolk would allow them into their home when they arrived in Bethlehem. Doesn't it shock you? It does me, and it enforces the idea that he was considered a mamzêr.

Take this a few years forward, to where Jesus is twelve, and He is now holding intelligent conversations with the scribes in the temple.

Where and how did Jesus get His knowledge?

The answer to that comes from Matthew 1:19, where it says: “... Joseph her husband, being a righteous man …” NAS95. Translations include good and just.

Who bestows a title like this upon you?

You do not give it to yourself, for that would be insolent. Therefore, only those who know you personally, know what you stand for, and have watched you for years; in the case of Joseph, who, up to this point, had most likely been an active member of a synagogue, and he, by memory, just as anyone else would have to do, memorized the passages over time and by repetition.

If I go back to Luke's gospel, I find information that tells me that Joseph was from Nazareth, and this may be where the dark shadow was cast over Nazareth.

Luke 1:26-27 NAS95 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, (27) to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.

The Biblical Illustrator states, “The place the angel is sent to—Nazareth. An obscure place, little taken notice of; yea, a city in Galilee, out of which arises no prophet: even there the God of prophets condescends to be conceived.”

“Out of which arises no prophet” – Well, that statement is no longer true.

This causes another question to rise within me. Was Jesus born in Nazareth?

No, but He was conceived there. Remember that Jesus, according to the religious busy bodies, was a mamzêr, an illegitimate child, and both the child and the mother could have been stoned.

Conveniently, a census was called for, and God saw fit to move Joseph and Mary out of Nazareth. Just because we don't see something spelled out with a definition does not mean it did not happen. It just moves the strong potential of hostility into the theoretical range, and, as you recall, we may have seen the theoretical in action when they came into Bethlehem. I believe it is clear that we probably should not try to make a theoretical subject a doctrinal issue, and that is why I am only sharing this with you, my closest friends.

Luke 2:1 NAS95 Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth.

There is an odd insertion.

Luke 2:2 NAS95 This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.

Information like this gives some the ability to pinpoint when Jesus was born.