Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 1:49
Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
49. thou art the Son of God ] We know from other passages that this was one of the recognised titles of the Messiah; Joh 11:27; Mat 26:63; Mar 3:11; Mar 5:7; Luk 4:41. ‘Son of David’ was more common.
the King of Israel ] Omit ‘the.’ This phrase “is especially important, because it breathes those politico-theocratic hopes, which since the taking of Jerusalem, Christians at least, if not Jews, must have entirely laid aside.” S. How could a Christian of the second century have thrown himself back to this?
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Rabbi – Master. Applied appropriately to Jesus, and to no one else, Mat 23:10.
The Son of God – By this title he doubtless meant that he was the Messiah. His conscience told him that he had judged right of his character, and that therefore he must know the heart and the desires of the mind. If so, he could not be a mere man, but must be the long-expected Messiah.
The King of Israel – This was one of the titles by which the Messiah was expected, and this was the title which was affixed to his cross, Joh 19:18. This case of Nathanael John adduces as another evidence that Jesus was the Christ. The great object he had in view in writing this gospel was to collect the evidence that he was the Messiah, Joh 20:31. A case, therefore, where Jesus searched the heart, and where his knowledge of the heart convinced a pious Jew that he was the Christ, is very properly adduced as important testimony.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Joh 1:49
Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel
The earliest creed
Remarkable as not being formulated by an ecumenical council, a ]earned rabbi, a matured and educated Christian, but by a simple guileless Jew who had only his Old Testament to learn from, and at his first interview with Christ.
Acquaintance with the Bible and communion with Christ the best qualifications for a creed maker. Would that all had learned this–would that all would learn it. Concerning this creed, notice
I. Its BREVITY. Compare it with its successors: the Apostles, the Nicene, the Athanasian, and the more modern Confessions of particular Churches: each adding something to its predecessor, until the mind is burdened and confused by the multiplicity of propositions.
1. This growth is accounted for by the rise of successive heresies against whose denials or affirmations the Church has protected itself by successive negative or positive articles.
2. This growth is only an expansion of and deduction from the primitive statement: an evolution of what has been involved in germ.
3. This growth has not always been a safeguard against the errors condemned. Churches with the most elaborate creeds have widely departed from the truth.
4. This growth adds nothing to the saving power of the simple confession of the text. All who with guileless heart profess Christ in the words of Nathanael will without doubt be saved everlastingly.
II. ITS SUFFICIENCY.
1. Rabbi. Christ is the Supreme Teacher.
(1) Inspiring prophets and apostles.
(2) Imparting instruction personally. His teaching is simple, profound, beautiful, vivifying.
(3) Giving the Spirit of Truth to guide into all truth.
2. Son of God who became the Son of man to redeem.
(1) His Divinity.
(2) His Atonement.
(3) His brotherly sympathy.
3. King of Israel.
(1) To reign.
(2) To rule.
(3) To conquer.
(4) To reward His servants and punish His enemies.
III. ITS DEFINITENESS.
1. Most creeds are made up of a number of abstract propositions, and are a general testimony of the confessors theological soundness to the world. Hence their feeble moral effect on the confessor. His mind may be sound, but his heart maybe heretical.
2. This creed was a brief statement of faith in Christ made to Christ Himself. The Te Deum is a better confession than the Athanasian or Nicene symbols. It touches and inspires while it gives expression to the feelings of the heart.
IV. THE METHOD OF ITS DELIVERY.
1. Prompt, without study or reluctance.
2. Positive, without misgiving about it or speculation beyond it.
3. Final; Nathanael never outgrew it, although he doubtless filled up the outline.
V. THE OBLIGATION IT INVOLVES.
1. Discipleship:
(1) Docility.
(2) Study.
(3) Continuous proficiency.
2. Saintship:
(1) Trust.
(2) Affection.
(3) Reverence.
(4) Holiness.
3. Loyalty:
(1) Obedience.
(2) Active service.
(3) Fidelity unto death.
VI. THE REWARD IT SECURES.
1. Instruction from the Rabbi.
2. Salvation from the Son of God.
3. Everlasting blessedness from the King of Israel. (J. W. Burn.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 49. Rabbi] That is, Teacher! and so this word should be translated.
Thou art the Son of God] The promised Messiah.
Thou art the King of Israel.] The real descendant of David, who art to sit on that spiritual throne of which the throne of David was the type.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The term Rabbi, which Nathanael here giveth to Christ, is of the same significance with Rabban, and Rabboni, Joh 20:16, Rabban, Rabhi, Rabbi, all which signify Master, and my Master; a name which in that age they usually gave their teachers, as a title of honour, Mat 23:7,8, titles that began about the time of our Saviour; for Buxtorf tells us, purer antiquity gave no such titles to their teachers or prophets, thinking it not possible to give those persons (extraordinarily sent of God) titles answerable to their dignity. They say, Hillel, about our Saviours time, was the first who was so called; Rabban was counted the highest, Rabbi the next, Rabbi the least. Rabban, they say, lasted about two hundred years, given to seven after Hillel. Nathanael calls him also
the Son of God, as Peter and the other disciples did, Mat 14:33, and Peter, Mat 16:16. But it appeareth, by many following passages, that they had but a faint persuasion of this, till he was declared so with power, by his resurrection from the dead, Rom 1:4. He acknowledgeth Christ also the King of Israel, that is, the true Messiah. This was the title of the Messiah, Mat 21:5; 27:11.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
49. Son of God . . . King ofIsraelthe one denoting His person, the other His office. Howmuch loftier this than anything Philip had said to him! But just asthe earth’s vital powers, the longer they are frost-bound, take thegreater spring when at length set free, so souls, like Nathanael andThomas (see on Joh 20:28), theoutgoings of whose faith are hindered for a time, take the start oftheir more easy-going brethren when loosed and let go.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Nathanael answered and saith unto him,…. Being fully convinced of his omniscience by these instances:
Rabbi; that is, master, as it is interpreted in Joh 1:38, and is not here, because it is there:
thou art the Son of God; not by creation, for this would be to say no more of him, than may be said of every man; nor by adoption, for in that sense Nathanael himself was a Son of God, and many others; nor on account of his wonderful incarnation, which, it is very likely, at this time Nathanael knew nothing of; nor by reason of his resurrection from the dead, which, as yet, was not, and still less might be known by this person; nor because of his office, as Mediator, for this is expressed in the next clause; but by nature, as being of the same essence, and possessed of the same perfections God is; and of which he was convinced by the instances he gave of his omniscience; for it was from hence, and no other consideration, that he concludes him to be the Son of God: wherefore this phrase must be understood of him, not as Mediator, but as a divine person; as the natural, essential, and eternal Son of God; and who is truly and properly God: he adds,
thou art the King of Israel; having in view, no doubt, the passage in Ps 2:6, where the characters of Son of God, and King of Zion, meet in the same person: not King of Israel, in a literal sense; though he was the son of David, and a descendant of his in a right line, and was of the royal line, and had a legal right to the throne of Israel; and Nathanael might have a view to this, being tinctured with the common national prejudice, that the Messiah would be a temporal prince: but his kingdom is not of this world; nor with observation; but is spiritual; and he is a King over Israel in a spiritual sense, even of saints, whether Jews or Gentiles: whom he conquers by his power, and rules in their hearts by his Spirit, and grace; and protects, and defends them from all their enemies.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou art the Son of God ( ). Whether Nathanael had heard the Baptist say this of Jesus (1:34) we do not know, apparently not, but Nathanael was a student of the Old Testament as Philip implied (1:45) and was quick to put together his knowledge, the statement of Philip, and the manifest supernatural knowledge of Jesus as just shown. There is no reason for toning down the noble confession of Nathanael in the light of Christ’s claim in verse 51. Cf. the confession of Peter in John 6:69; Matt 16:16 and Martha’s in Joh 11:27. Nathanael goes further.
Thou art King of Israel ( ). To us this seems an anti-climax, but not so to Nathanael for both are Messianic titles in Ps 2 and Jesus is greeted in the Triumphal Entry as the King of Israel (Joh 12:13).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Nathanael answered and said unto him,” (apekrithe auto Nathanael) “Nathanael replied to him,” to Jesus, in emphatic ecstasy,
2) “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God;- (hrabbi su ei ho huiostou theou) “Rabbi, you are the Son of God, “the heir of God, the Divine one who was to come, that prophet whom everyone (and I too) is to heed, to obey, Mat 14:33; Joh 20:28-29.
3) “Thou art-the king of Israel.” (su Basileus ei tou Israel) “You are the king of Israel,” a testimony of his faith in both the Deity or Divinity and Messiahship of Jesus Christ, Psa 2:7; Mat 16:16; Mat 21:5; Luk 22:70; Joh 11:27; Mat 27:11.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
49. Thou art the Son of God. That he acknowledges him to be the Son of God from his divine power is not wonderful; but on what ground does he call him King of Israel ? for the two things do not appear to be necessarily connected. But Nathanael takes a loftier view. He had already heard that he is the Messiah, and to this doctrine he adds the confirmation which had been given him. He holds also another principle, that the Son of God will not come without exercising the office of King over the people of God. Justly, therefore, does he acknowledge that he who is the Son of God is also King of Israel And, indeed, faith ought not to be fixed on the essence of Christ alone, (so to speak,) but ought to attend to his power and office; for it would be of little advantage to know who Christ is, if this second point were not added, what he wishes to be towards us, and for what purpose the Father sent him. The reason why the Papists have nothing more than a shadow of Christ is, that they have been careful to look at his mere essence, but have disregarded his kingdom, which consists in the power to save.
Again, when Nathanael calls him King of Israel, though his kingdom extends to the remotest bounds of the earth, the confession is limited to the measure of faith. For he had not yet advanced so far as to know that Christ was appointed to be King over the whole world, or rather, that from every quarter would be collected the children of Abraham, so that the whole world would be the Israel of God. We to whom the wide extent of Christ’s kingdom has been revealed ought to go beyond those narrow limits. Yet following the example of Nathanael, let us exercise our faith in hearing the word, and let us strengthen it by all the means that are in our power; and let it not remain buried, but break out into confession.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(49) Thou art the Son of God.The recognition begets recognition. That strange Presence he had felt as a spiritual power quickening hope and thought, making prophets words living truths, filling with a true meaning the current beliefs about the Messiah;yes; it goes through and through him again now. It is there before him. Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art the King of Israel. (For these titles as existing in the Messianic expectation of the day, comp. Joh. 11:27; Joh. 12:13; Joh. 12:15; Mat. 26:63; Mar. 3:11; Mar. 5:7. See also Note on the quotation from Zech. in Mat. 21:5.)
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
49. Thou art the Son of God The title which the Baptist had taught them to apply to Jesus, Joh 1:34.
King of Israel King in that kingdom of God for which he perhaps had prayed.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Nathaniel answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God. You are King of Israel”.’
This awareness of Jesus convinces Nathaniel that his friend Philip is right. ‘Rabbi,’ he says in awe, ‘you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel’ (v. 49). Notice the juxtaposition of the two phrases. It would appear that to him the one equates with the other, although ‘Son of God’ was not as far as we know a recognised designation for the Messiah. He had recognised that the promised king has come. It may, however, be that his thought went further than that and that what Jesus had said had so impressed him that he considered Him unique in His relationship to God without defining it too specifically.
However, even if at this point in time in the Gospel reference to ‘the Son of God’ has in mind the ‘coming king’ as God’s adopted son, the Messiah, its deeper significance, which will dawn on them later, is what the writer wishes to bring out. (It should be noted that ‘Son of God’ was not, as far as we know, a recognised Messianic designation. But that a coming king could be recognised as the son of God is implicit in Psa 2:7; compare 2 Samuel 7).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 1:49. Rabbi, thou art the Son of God, It is not improbable but Nathanael had been praying under the fig-tree, and that in his prayer he had made confession of his sins in such a particular and ample manner, as to claim, in that respect, the character which Christ gave of him. Accordingly, when Jesus insinuated that he had given it to him on account of what had passed under the fig-tree, Nathanael immediately perceived that he not only knew what was done at a distance, but could also look into men’s hearts; and therefore cried out in great astonishment, that he was the long expected Messiah of the Jews. It may not be improper to observe here, that the Jews universally believed the Son of God would appear on earth, and be that great King whom they had for so many ages expected; as appears from the passage before us, and from Joh 6:69; Joh 11:27. Mat 26:63. It is remarkable, that the woman of Samaria draws the same inference with Nathanael from a similar circumstance; (see ch. Joh 4:29.) which plainly intimates, that they supposed that the Messiah would be endowed with the most perfect knowledge, and have the gift of prophesy in the highest degree. There was a great deal of courage in Nathanael’s making such a declaration as that before us, if it was made before a mixed company: for Christ’s assuming the title of Son of God, was afterwards interpreted to be no less than blasphemy. See ch. Joh 10:36 Joh 19:7 and Joh 9:22; Joh 9:34.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 1:49 . The approaching Nathanael heard the testimony of Jesus, and does not decline His commendation, itself a proof of his guileless honesty; but he asks in amazement how Jesus knew him .
. ] belongs, as Joh 1:51 shows, not to , but to . Therefore, before Philip, Joh 1:46-47 , met and called ( , comp. Joh 2:9 , Joh 4:16 , Joh 9:28 , Joh 18:33 ), Nathanael had been under a fig-tree; whether the fig-tree of his own house (Mic 4:4 ; Zec 3:10 ), whether meditating (possibly upon the Messianic hope of the people), praying, reading, which, according to Rabbinical statements (see in Lightfoot, Schoettgen, Wetstein), were employments performed beneath such trees, we are not informed. He had just come from the tree to the place where Philip met him. [127]
] is usually taken as referring to a glance into the depth of his soul , [128] but contrary to the simple meaning of the words, which affirm nothing else than: I saw thee , not , or the like. Comp. also Hengstenberg. The miraculous element in the , which made it a to Nathanael, and which led to his confession which follows in Joh 1:50 , must have consisted in the fact that the fig-tree either was situated out of sight of the place, or so far off that no one with ordinary powers of sight could have discerned a person under it. thus simply interpreted gives the true solution to Nathanael’s question, because there could not have been this rapport of miraculous far-seeing on the part of Jesus, had it not just been brought about by the immediate recognition of the true Israelite when he was at that distance. This spiritual elective affinity was the medium of the supernatural . Nonnus well says: . Jesus would not have seen an ordinary Jew, who, being therefore without this spiritual affinity, was beyond the limits of sight.
.] with the article: “under that well-known fig-tree, beneath which you were,” or, if the tree was within the range of vision, pointing towards it . De Wette also rightly abides by the simple meaning, I saw thee , but thinks that what caused the astonishment of Nathanael was the fact that Jesus saw him when he believed himself to he unobserved (though John regarded this seeing as supernatural). But this does not give an adequate motive psychologically for the confession of Joh 1:50 ; and we must further assume, with Ewald, that the words of Jesus reminded Nathanael of the deep and weighty thoughts which he was revolving when alone under the fig-tree, and he thus perceived that the depths of his soul were laid open before the spiritual eye of Jesus, though this is not indicated in the text.
[127] The reference of the to the same place where Philip called him (so, after the Greek Fathers, B. Crusius) must be rejected, because neither the
nor the would thus have their appropriate and necessary point.
[128] Where it is imagined, though without the slightest hint to that effect in the text, that Jesus had a short time before passed by the fig-tree unobserved .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
49. ] The remark was overheard by Nathanael, and recognized as indicating perfect knowledge of his character. The question . . is one of astonishment, but not perhaps yet of suspicion of any thing supernatural. Our Lord’s answer first opens this to him.
. . . ] It would be doubtful whether . . belong to or to , did not Joh 1:51 decide for the latter construction.
The whole form of our Lord’s answer seems to indicate that the place where Philip called Nathanael was not now in sight, nor had been. The declaration that Jesus had seen him there, at once brings the conviction which he expresses in the next verse. This would not have been the case, unless the sight had been evidently and unquestionably supernatural: and unless the words involved this. Had Jesus merely seen Nathanael without being seen by him, (De Wette,) or had only expressed ‘ I knew thy character ,’ at first sight, ‘ although at a distance ’ (Lcke), no such immediate conviction would have followed .
, says Wordsw., “is something more than the accusative indicates retirement thither as well as concealment there, perhaps for purposes of prayer and meditation.” In fact it contains in it, ‘when thou wentest under the fig-tree, and while thou wert there.’
Joh 1:50 = ‘Thou art the Messiah:’ see Psa 2:7 . ch. Joh 11:27 : Mat 16:16 ; Luk 22:70 . Olshausen (ii. 77 ff.) maintains that . . . was not a Jewish appellation for the Messiah, on account of the Jews taking up stones to cast at Jesus when He so called Himself, ch. Joh 10:33 . But as Lcke observes (i. 456, note), it was not for the mere use of this Name, but for using it in a close and literal sense which was unintelligible and appeared blasphemous to them, . , that they wished to stone Him: see note on ch. Joh 10:36 . It was certainly not so common a name as ‘the Son of David,’ for the Messiah.
Nathanael can hardly have meant the name in other than its popular meaning; and the synonymous and better known appellation which he adds, confirms this.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 1:49 . The significance of this utterance is further shown by what follows. Naturally Nathanael is surprised by this explicit testimony from one with whom he has had no acquaintance and who has notwithstanding truly described him, and he asks, ; “how do you know me?” perhaps imagining that some common friend had told Jesus about him. But Jesus ascribes it to another cause: , I saw thee under the fig tree before Philip called thee (not, I saw thee somewhere else before Philip called thee when you were under the fig tree). “Under the fig tree” is obviously significant. Such trees were planted by the wayside (Mat 21:19 ), and the large thick leaf afforded shade. It was the favourite garden tree of the Jews, so that “sitting under one’s fig tree” meant being at home (Mic 4:4 , Zec 3:10 ). The tree formed a natural arbour affording shade and privacy. Thus Schoettgen quotes that it is related of Rabbi Jose and his disciples, “solebant summo mane surgere et sedere et studere sub ficu”. And Lightfoot ( Hor. Heb., in loc. ) says that Nathanael was “aut orans, aut legens, aut meditans, aut aliquid religiosum praestans, in secessu sub aliqu ficu et extra conspectum hominum”. But evidently Nathanael understood that Jesus had not only seen him when he thought he was unobserved, but had penetrated his thought in retirement, and understood and sympathised with his prayer under the fig tree, for the impression made upon him by this knowledge of Jesus is profound.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
the King of Israel. Thus proclaiming the Person of the Lord, in connexion with the Kingdom.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
49.] The remark was overheard by Nathanael, and recognized as indicating perfect knowledge of his character. The question . . is one of astonishment, but not perhaps yet of suspicion of any thing supernatural. Our Lords answer first opens this to him.
…] It would be doubtful whether . . belong to or to , did not Joh 1:51 decide for the latter construction.
The whole form of our Lords answer seems to indicate that the place where Philip called Nathanael was not now in sight, nor had been. The declaration that Jesus had seen him there, at once brings the conviction which he expresses in the next verse. This would not have been the case, unless the sight had been evidently and unquestionably supernatural: and unless the words involved this. Had Jesus merely seen Nathanael without being seen by him, (De Wette,) or had only expressed I knew thy character, at first sight, although at a distance (Lcke), no such immediate conviction would have followed.
, says Wordsw., is something more than -the accusative indicates retirement thither as well as concealment there,-perhaps for purposes of prayer and meditation. In fact it contains in it, when thou wentest under the fig-tree, and while thou wert there.
Joh 1:50 = Thou art the Messiah: see Psa 2:7. ch. Joh 11:27 : Mat 16:16; Luk 22:70. Olshausen (ii. 77 ff.) maintains that . . . was not a Jewish appellation for the Messiah,-on account of the Jews taking up stones to cast at Jesus when He so called Himself, ch. Joh 10:33. But as Lcke observes (i. 456, note), it was not for the mere use of this Name,-but for using it in a close and literal sense which was unintelligible and appeared blasphemous to them, . ,-that they wished to stone Him: see note on ch. Joh 10:36. It was certainly not so common a name as the Son of David, for the Messiah.
Nathanael can hardly have meant the name in other than its popular meaning; and the synonymous and better known appellation which he adds, confirms this.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 1:49. , he answered) Considerate quickness in believing brings with it a blessed [sumptuous] portion: slowness is censured, Luk 24:25, O fools, and slow of heart to believe.- , Thou art the Son of God) ch. Joh 6:69, We believe and are sure that Thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. Now Nathanael himself confesses more than he had heard from Philip: and retracts his doubt as to the goodness of Jesus.- – , the Son-the King) A confession as to the person and office of Christ. , Thou art the King of Israel) and so my King also, since Thou dost acknowledge me to be a genuine Israelite.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 1:49
Joh 1:49
Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.-His knowing things that were beyond his power to learn by his senses with none to inform him satisfied the guileless spirit of Nathanael that he was superhuman. Putting it with the teaching of John and the testimony he had borne to Jesus which he learned of Philip and had likely heard of others satisfied him at once, and he acknowledged him as the Son of God, the King of Israel.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Rabbi: Joh 1:38
thou: Joh 1:18, Joh 1:34, Joh 20:28, Joh 20:29, Mat 14:33
the King: Joh 12:13-15, Joh 18:37, Joh 19:19-22, Psa 2:6, Psa 110:1, Isa 9:7, Jer 23:5, Jer 23:6, Eze 37:21-25, Dan 9:25, Hos 3:5, Mic 5:2, Zep 3:15, Zec 6:12, Zec 6:13, Zec 9:9, Mat 2:2, Mat 21:5, Mat 27:11, Mat 27:42, Luk 19:38
Reciprocal: Num 24:7 – his king Hos 13:10 – I will be thy king Zec 14:16 – the King Mat 16:16 – Thou Mat 22:42 – What Mat 23:7 – Rabbi Mat 25:34 – the King Mat 26:63 – the Christ Mar 1:1 – son Mar 9:7 – This Mar 12:6 – one Mar 14:61 – the Son Mar 15:32 – Christ Luk 1:35 – the Son of God Luk 9:20 – The Luk 22:70 – the Son Luk 23:3 – the King Luk 23:42 – when Joh 4:19 – I perceive Joh 4:25 – Messias Joh 7:41 – This is Joh 9:35 – Dost Joh 11:27 – Yea Joh 18:33 – the king Joh 20:16 – Rabboni Joh 20:31 – these Act 9:20 – that Rom 1:3 – his Son 2Co 1:19 – the Son Gal 2:20 – the Son Rev 2:18 – the Son
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
Upon the aforesaid evidence, Nathanael acknowledged Jesus to be all He had claimed to be, namely, the Son of God and King of Israel.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 1:49. Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, Thou art the Son of God; Thou art King of Israel. The confession is the highest that has yet been made, for it is impossible to understand Son of God as the simple equivalent of Messiah (see note on Joh 1:34). Yet it is a confession coming out of the very heart of Old Testament prophecy, and to be accounted for by those circumstances of Nathanaels past history and present position that have been already noticed. It was not merely of a great Deliverer that the prophets had spoken. They had spoken not less of Jehovah Himself as coming, and as coming to be their Deliverer and their King. In the second Psalm, in particular, we find the two ideas of the Son of God and of Zions King closely conjoined; and in the seventy – second Psalm the psalmist had described in glowing language that kingdom of peace and righteousness, extending over the whole earth, of which a shadow and type were afforded by the reign of Solomon. But if it be undeniable that these ideas were imbedded in the Old Testament, there is nothing inconceivable in their being gathered from it and enunciated by those who in meditation and prayer had caught its spirit. Add to this the self-evidencing power of the Person of Jesus, which must have been so much more to Nathanael than the mere record can be to us, and we need not wonder that he should thus acknowledge Jesus. Nor is there any warrant for describing his feelings as vague. What he did was to rise to the height of Old Testament prophecy; what he saw was that this must be Jehovah that was to come, the universal King.
The three confessions have risen as they have succeeded one another. Higher than the last they cannot rise. The Lord himself is come; His kingdom is without limit and without end.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 49. Nathanael says to Him: whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said to him: Before Philip called thee, when thou wert under the fig-tree, I saw thee.
This reply by which Nathanael seems to appropriate to himself the eulogy contained in Joh 1:48 has been criticised as not modest. But he wishes simply to know on what grounds Jesus, who sees him for the first time, forms this judgment of him. Certainly, if we take account of the extraordinary effect which Jesus’ answer produced upon Nathanael (Joh 1:50), it must contain to his view the indubitable proof of the supernatural knowledge which Jesus has of him. Lucke thinks that this knowledge applies only to the inward moral state of Nathanael; Meyer, on the contrary, that it applies only to the external fact of his sitting under the fig-tree. But thoroughly to comprehend the relation of this saying of Jesus, on the one side, to his previous declaration (Joh 1:48), and, on the other, to the exclamation of Nathanael (Joh 1:50), it is indispensable to unite the two views. Not only does Nathanael note the fact that the eye of Jesus had followed him in a place where His natural sight could not reach him, but he understands that the eye of this stranger has penetrated his interior being, and has discerned there a moral fact which justifies the estimate expressed by Jesus in Joh 1:48.
Otherwise, the answer of Jesus does not any the more justify that estimate, and we cannot understand how it can call forth the exclamation of Nathanael in Joh 1:50, or be presented, in Joh 1:51, as the first of the Lord’s miraculous works. What had taken place in Nathanael, at that moment when he was under the fig-tree? Had he made to God the confession of some sin (Psa 32:1-2), taken some holy resolution, made the vow to repair some wrong? However this may be, serious thoughts had filled his heart, so that, on hearing the word of Jesus, he feels that he has been penetrated by a look which participates in the divine omniscience. The words: before Philip called thee, are connected by Weiss with what follows, in this sense: When thou wert under the fig-tree before Philip called thee. But they much more naturally qualify the principal verb: I saw thee. And the same is true of the second limiting phrase: when thou wert under the fig-tree, which refers rather to what follows than to what precedes. For the situation in which Jesus saw him is of more consequence than that in which Philip called him.The construction of , with the accusative ( ), with the verb of rest, is owing to the fact that to the local relation there is joined the moral notion of shelter. I saw denotes a view such as that of Elisha (2 Kings 5). In Jesus, as in the prophets, there was a higher vision, which may be regarded as a partial association with the perfect vision of God. At this word, Nathanael feels himself, as it were, penetrated by a ray of divine light:
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Jesus’ simple statement elicited the most dramatic reaction from Nathanael. He concluded that the only way Jesus could have seen him when he was under the fig tree was if Jesus had supernatural knowledge. Evidently Nathanael knew that he was completely alone and that no one could see him when he was under the fig tree.
Nathanael’s reaction appears extreme at first since even prophets had knowledge of things other people knew nothing about. Why did Nathanael think Jesus was the Son of God and not just a prophet? The answer seems to be that even the title "Son of God" did not mean deity to all the Jews in Jesus’ day. It meant that the person in view bore certain characteristics of God (cf. Deu 3:18; 1Sa 26:16; Psa 89:22; Pro 31:2; Mat 5:9; Joh 17:12). Nathanael appears to have regarded Jesus as the Messiah who had supernatural knowledge (cf. Joh 1:45; 2Sa 7:14; Psa 2:6-7; Isa 11:1-2). However, Nathanael spoke better than he knew. Jesus was the Son of God in a fuller sense than he presently understood. Another view is that Nathanael was identifying Jesus as God. [Note: E.g., Beasley-Murray, p. 27.]
"In recording this estimate John is adding to the evidence accumulated throughout this chapter that Jesus is indeed the Messiah. Nathanael expresses this truth differently from the others, but the essential meaning is the same . . . Nor should we overlook the fact that Nathanael has just been called an ’Israelite." In calling Jesus ’King of Israel’ he is acknowledging Jesus to be his own King: he is submitting to him." [Note: Morris, p. 147.]