314. In quo discipuli vocati conditio exprimitur: quia erant a Bethsaida. 314. This gives us the situation of the disciples he called: for they were from Bethsaida. Et sic congruit mysterio. Bethsaida enim domus venatorum interpretatur: ut ostendat quales tunc animo erant Philippus, Petrus et Andreas, et quod de domo venatorum, congrue venatores ad capiendas animas ad vitam vocaret. Ier. XVI, 16: mittam meos venatores etc. And this is appropriate to this mystery. For Bethsaida means house of hunters, to show the attitude of Philip, Peter and Andrew at that time, and because it was fitting to call, from the house of hunters, hunters who were to capture souls for life: I will send my hunters (Jer 16:16). 315. Consequenter ponitur fructus discipuli ad Christum conversi, et 315. Now the fruit produced by the disciple who was converted to Christ is given. primo ponitur inchoatio fructus facta a discipulo; First, the beginning of the fruit, coming from this disciple. secundo consummatio facta per Christum, ibi vidit Iesus Nathanaelem. Second, its consummation by Christ, at Jesus saw Nathanael. Circa primum tria facit. As to the first, he does three things: Primo ponitur Annuntiatio Philippi; first, the statement of Philip is given; secundo responsio Nathanaelis, ibi et dixit Nathanael; second, Nathanael’s response, at Nathanael said; tertio consequens admonitio Philippi, ibi dicit ei Philippus. and third, Philip’s ensuing advice, at Philip said to him. 316. Circa primum attende, quod sicut Andreas perfecte conversus studuit adducere fratrem suum ad Christum, ita et Philippus fratrem suum Nathanaelem. Et ideo dicit invenit Philippus Nathanaelem, quem forte quaerebat, sicut Andreas Petrum quaesierat: quod fuit signum perfectae conversionis. Et dixit ei. Nathanael interpretatur donum Dei; et quod aliquis ad Christum convertatur, ex dono Dei est. Annuntiat autem ei omnes prophetias et legem complementum habere, et desideria sanctorum patrum non esse frustrata, sed esse verificata, et quod eorum desideriis erat promissum a Deo, iam adimpletum esse. Quem scripsit Moyses in lege et prophetis, invenimus Iesum; per quod datur intelligi quod Nathanael erat satis peritus in lege, et quod etiam Philippus iam instructus de Christo, voluit Nathanaelem ex sibi notis, scilicet ex lege et prophetis, inducere ad Christum, et ideo dicit quem scripsit Moyses etc. Moyses enim de Christo scripsit; infra V, 46: si crederetis Moysi, crederetis forsitan et mihi: de me enim ille scripsit. Similiter prophetae de Christo scripserunt; Act. c. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae testimonium perhibent. 316. As to the first, note that just as Andrew, after having been perfectly converted, was eager to lead his brother to Christ, so too Philip with regard to his brother, Nathanael. And so he says that Philip found Nathanael, whom he probably looked for as Andrew did for Peter; and this was a sign of a perfect conversion. And said to him. The word Nathanael means gift of God; and it is God’s gift if anyone is converted to Christ. He tells him that all the prophecies and the law have been fulfilled, and that the desires of their holy forefathers are not in vain, but have been guaranteed, and that what God has promised was now accomplished. We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote, Jesus. We understand by this that Nathanael was fairly learned in the law, and that Philip, now having learned about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ through the things he himself knew, that is, from the law and the prophets. So he says, him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets wrote. For Moses wrote of Christ: if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also, for he wrote of me (John 5:46). The prophets too wrote of Christ: all the prophets bear witness to him (Acts 10:43). 317. Etiam attende, quod tria dicit de Christo Philippus, legi et prophetis consona. Primo quidem nomen; unde dixit invenimus Iesum. Et hoc consonat prophetis: Is. XIX, v. 20: mittam eis salvatorem etc.; Hab. ult., v. 18: exultabo in Deo Iesu meo. 317. Note that Philip says three things about Christ that are in agreement with the law and the prophets. First, the name: for he says, we have found . . . Jesus. And this agrees with the prophets: I will send them a savior (Isa 19:20); I will rejoice in God, my Jesus (Heb 3:18). Secundo vero genus, unde duxit originem humanam cum dicit filium Ioseph, scilicet qui erat de domo David et familia. Et quamvis ex eo Christus originem non duxerit, tamen ex virgine duxit, quae erat de eadem progenie cum Ioseph. Vocat autem filium Ioseph, quia eius filius aestimabatur esse, cui scilicet desponsata erat mater eius. Unde dicitur Lc. c. III, 23: ut putabatur filius Ioseph. Nec mirum, si Philippus vocabat eum filium Ioseph, cum et mater eius divinae incarnationis conscia, ipsum eius filium diceret; Lc. II, 48, pater tuus, et ego dolentes quaerebamus te. Et si quidem aliquis filius alicuius vocatur, quia nutritur ab ipso, Ioseph multo amplius pater Iesu dici poterat, licet secundum carnem pater non esset: quia et eum nutriverat, et sponsus matris Virginis erat. Dicitur autem hic a Philippo non tamquam de commixtione Ioseph et virginis natus esset, sed quia sciebat Christum de generatione David nasciturum, de cuius domo et familia erat Ioseph, cui desponsata erat Maria. Et hoc etiam consonat prophetis: Ierem. XXIII, 5: suscitabo David germen iustum etc. Second, the family from which Christ took his human origin, when he says, son of Joseph, i.e., who was of the house and family of David. And although Jesus did not derive his origin from him, yet he did derive it from the Virgin, who was of the same line as Joseph. He calls him the son of Joseph, because Jesus was considered to be the son of the one to whom his mother was married. So it is said: the son of Joseph (as was supposed) (Luke 3:23). Nor is it strange that Philip called him the son of Joseph, since his own mother, who was aware of his divine incarnation, called him his son: your father and I have been looking for you in sorrow (Luke 2:48). Indeed, if one is called the son of another because he is nurtured by him, Joseph is all the more able to be called the father of Jesus, even though he was not so according to the flesh: for he not only supported him, but was the husband of his virgin mother. However, Philip calls him the son of Joseph, not as though he was born from the union of Joseph and the Virgin, because he knew that Christ would be born from the line of David; and this was the house and family of Joseph, to whom Mary was married. And this also is in agreement with the prophets: I will raise up a just branch for David (Jer 23:5). Tertio commemorat patriam, dicens a Nazareth: non quia in ea natus esset, immo in Bethlehem, sed quia in ea erat nutritus. Quia enim nativitas eius multis erat incognita, locus autem ubi nutritus erat, cognitus erat multis, ideo Philippus Bethlehem tacuit, et posuit Nazareth. Et hoc quidem consonat dictis prophetarum; nam, Is. XI, 1: egredietur virga de radice Iesse, et flos, sive Nazaraeus, secundum aliam litteram, de radice eius ascendet. Third, he mentions his native land, saying, from Nazareth; not because he had been born there, but because he was brought up there; but he had been born in Bethlehem. Philip omits to mention Bethlehem but not Nazareth because, while the birth of Christ was not known to many, the place where he was brought up was. And this also agrees with the prophets: a shoot will arise from the root of Jesse, and a flower (or Nazarene, according to another version) will rise up from his roots (Isa 11:1). 318. Consequenter cum dicit et dixit ei Nathanael etc. ponitur responsio Nathanaelis: quod quidem potest legi et assertive et interrogative; et utroque modo eiusmodi responsio congruit verbis Philippi. 318. Then when he says, Nathanael replied, the answer of Nathanael is given. His answer can be interpreted as an assertion or as a question; and in either way it is suitable to Philip’s affirmation. Si enim, secundum quod Augustinus vult, legatur assertive, est sensus: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse. Idest, a civitate, tanti nominis, potest esse quod aliquid summae gratiae nobis oriatur, seu aliquis doctor eximius, qui florem virtutum et munditiam sanctitatis nobis praedicet. Nazareth enim flos interpretatur. Ex quo datur intelligi quod Nathanael doctissimus in lege, scrutatus Scripturas, praenoscebat quod de Nazareth expectandus esset salvator, quod non facile alii Scribae et Pharisaei noverant; et ideo, cum Philippus diceret invenimus Iesum a Nazareth, erectus in spem, respondit: vere a Nazareth potest esse etc. If it is taken as an assertion, as Augustine does, the meaning is: some good can come from Nazareth. In other words, from a city with that name it is possible that there come forth to us some very excellent grace or some outstanding teacher to preach to us about the flower of the virtues and the purity of sanctity; for Nazareth means flower. We can understand from this that Nathanael, being quite learned in the law and a student of the Scriptures, knew that the savior was expected to come from Nazareth—something that was not so clear even to the Scribes and Pharisees. And so when Philip said, we have found . . . Jesus . . . from Nazareth, his hopes were lifted and he answered: indeed, some good can come from Nazareth. Si vero legatur, secundum Chrysostomum, interrogative, tunc est sensus: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Quasi dicat: omnia alia quae dicis credibilia videntur esse, quia et nomen et genus prophetis consonat, sed hoc quod dicis a Nazareth, non videtur possibile. Nathanael enim habuerat per Scripturas, quod a Bethlehem oportet Christum venire, secundum illud Matth. II, 6: et tu, Bethlehem terra Iuda, nequaquam minima es in principibus Iuda: ex te enim exiet dux qui regat populum meum Israel. Et ideo, non inveniens convenire enunciationem Philippi cum prophetica praedicatione, prudenter et mansuete de veritate dicti interrogat a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? But if we take his answer as a question, as Chrysostom does, then the sense is: can anything good come from Nazareth? As if to say: everything else you say seems credible, because his name and his lineage are consistent with the prophecies, but your statement that he is from Nazareth does not seem possible. For Nathanael understood from the Scriptures that the Christ was to come from Bethlehem, according to: and you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of you a ruler will come forth, who will rule my people Israel (Matt 2:6). And so, not finding Philip’s statement in agreement with the prophecy, he prudently and moderately inquires about its truth, can anything good come from Nazareth? 319. Consequenter ponitur admonitio Philippi: dixit ei Philippus: veni et vide; quae quidem admonitio utrique responsioni Nathanaelis convenit. Assertive quidem, ut dicatur: tu dicis quod a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse, sed ego dico, quod illud bonum quod tibi annuntio, tantum et tam magnificum est quod ego exprimere non valeo; et ideo veni, et vide. Interrogative autem legitur sic. Tu admirando dicis: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Reputans hoc esse impossibile secundum Scripturas; sed si experiri volueris quae ego expertus sum, intelliges vera esse quae dico; et ideo veni, et vide. 319. Then Philip’s advice is given: Philip said to him: come and see. And this advice suits either interpretation of Nathanael’s answer. To the assertive interpretation it is as though he says: You say that something good can come from Nazareth, but I say that the good I state to you is of such a nature and so marvelous that I am unable to express it in words, so come and see. To the interpretation that makes it a question, it as as though he says: You wonder and say: can anything good come from Nazareth?, thinking that this is impossible according to the Scriptures. But if you are willing to experience what I experienced, you will understand that what I say is true, so come and see. Trahit quidem Philippus Nathanaelem ad Christum, eius interrogationibus non fractus, qui scit de reliquo eum non contradicturum, si verba et doctrinam Christi gustaverit: et in hoc Philippus Christum secutus est, qui superius interrogantibus eum de habitaculo, respondit: venite, et videte. Ps. XXXIII, 6: accedite ad eum, et illuminamini. Then, not discouraged by his questions, Philip brings Nathanael to Christ. He knew that he would no longer argue with him if he tasted the words and teaching of Christ. And in this, Philip was imitating Christ who earlier answered those who had asked about the place where he lived: come and see. Come to him, and be enlightened (Ps 33:6). 320. Consequenter cum dicit vidit Iesus Nathanaelem, ponitur consummatio fructus per Christum. 320. Then when he says, Jesus saw Nathanael, the consummation of this fruit by Christ is described. Sciendum autem, quod aliqui dupliciter convertuntur ad Christum: quidam per miracula visa, et experta in se, sive in aliis; quidam vero per spirationes internas, et per prophetiam et praenoscentiam occultorum futurorum. Sed efficacior est modus per prophetias et praenoscentiam futurorum converti, quam per miracula. Ipsi enim Daemones, et aliqui homines eorum auxilio, aliqua mira praetendere possunt: sed futura praedicere solius divinae virtutis opus est; Is. XLI, 23: ventura quoque annuntiate, et dicemus quod dii estis; I Cor. c. XIV, 22: prophetiae datae sunt fidelibus. Et inde est quod Dominus non per miracula, sed per praenuntiationem occultorum Nathanaelem ad fidem trahit; et ideo dicit de eo ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est. We should note that there are two ways in which men are converted to Christ: some by miracles they have seen and things experienced in themselves or in others; others are converted through internal insights, through prophecy and the foreknowledge of what is hidden in the future. The second way is more efficacious than the first: for devils and certain men who receive their help can simulate marvels; but to predict the future can only be done by divine power. Tell us what is to come, and we will say that you are gods (Isa 41:23); prophecies are for those who believe (1 Cor 14:22). And so our Lord draws Nathanael to the faith not by miracles but by making known things which are hidden. And so he says of him, behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. 321. Ubi tria occulta ei insinuat, scilicet occulta praesentia, quae sunt in corde, praeterita facta, et fu tura caelestia: quae quidem tria scire, divinum est, non humanum opus. 321. Christ mentions three hidden matters: things hidden in the present, in the heart; past facts; and future heavenly matters. To know these three things is not a human but a divine achievement. Occulta quidem praesentia insinuat ei, cum dicit ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est: ubi quidem He mentions things hidden in the present when he says, behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Here we have, primo ponitur Christi praenuntiatio; first, the prior revelation of Christ; secundo vero Nathanaelis inquisitio, ibi unde me nosti? second, Nathanael’s question, how do you know me? 322. Dicit ergo circa primum vidit Iesus Nathanaelem venientem ad se, quasi dicat: antequam ad ipsum perveniret, dixit de eo: ecce vere Israelita etc. Dixit autem hoc de eo antequam ad ipsum perveniret, quia si dixisset hoc postquam ad Iesum pervenisset, potuisset credere Nathanael quod hoc Iesus audivisset a Philippo. 322. First he says, when Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him. As if to say: before Nathanael reached him, Jesus said, behold a true Israelite. He said this about him before he came to him, because had he said it after he came, Nathanael might have believed that Jesus had heard it from Philip. Dixit autem ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est: Israel autem duas interpretationes habet. Uno enim modo interpretatur rectissimus; Is. XLIV, 2: noli timere, serve meus rectissime, quem elegi, ubi dicit Glossa, quod Israel interpretatur rectissimus. Alio modo Israel interpretatur vir videns Deum. Et secundum utrumque, Nathanael est vere Israelita: quia enim ille dicitur rectus in quo non est dolus, ideo dicitur vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est; quasi dicat: vere repraesentas genus tuum, quia tu es rectus et sine dolo. Quia vero per munditiam et simplicitatem homo Deum videt, ideo dixit vere Israelita; idest, tu es vir vere videns Deum, quia tu es simplex et sine dolo. Christ said, behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. Now Israel has two meanings. One of these, as the Gloss says, is most righteous.—do not fear, my most righteous servant, whom I have chosen (Isa 44:2). Its second meaning is the man who sees God. And according to each meaning Nathanael is a true Israelite. For since one in whom there is no guile is called righteous, Nathanael is said to be a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile. As if to say: you truly represent your race because you are righteous and without guile. Further, because man sees God through cleanness of heart and simplicity, Christ said, a true Israelite, i.e., you are a man who truly sees God because you are simple and without guile. Dixit autem in quo dolus non est, ne credatur quod malitiose dixerit: a Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse? Quasi interrogans. Further, he said, in whom there is no guile, so that we do not think that it was with malice that Nathanael asked: can anything good come from Nazareth? 323. Augustinus autem aliter exponit. Manifestum est enim quod omnes sub peccato nascuntur. Illi ergo dicuntur dolosi qui peccatum habentes in corde, exterius fingunt se iustos; qui vero peccator est, et se peccatorem confitetur, non est dolosus. Dixit ergo ecce vere Israelita, in quo dolus non est, non quod peccatum non haberet, non quod illi medicus necessarius non esset, quia nemo sic natus est ut nullo medico indigeat; sed in eo confessionem peccati laudavit. 323. Augustine has a different explanation of this passage. It is clear that all are born under sin. Now those who have sin in their hearts but outwardly pretend to be just are called guileful. But a sinner who admits that he is a sinner is not guileful. So Christ said, behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile, not because Nathanael was without sin, or because he had no need of a physician, for no one is born in such a way as not to need a physician; but he was praised by Christ because he admitted his sins. 324. Consequenter cum dicit unde me nosti? ponitur Nathanaelis inquisitio. 324. Then when he says, how do you know me?, we have Nathanael’s question. Admirans enim Nathanael virtutem Dei in occultorum manifestatione, quia hoc solius Dei est: Ier. XVII, 9, pravum est cor hominis, et inscrutabile, et quis cognoscet illud? Ego Dominus scrutans cor et probans renes; et I Reg. XVI, 7, homines vident ea quae parent, Deus autem intuetur cor, ideo quaerit unde me nosti? In quo commendatur Nathanaelis humilitas: quia licet laudaretur, non est elatus; sed laudem propriam suspectam habuit: contra quod dicitur Is. III, 12: popule meus, qui beatum te dicunt, ipsi te decipiunt. For Nathanael, in wonder at the divine power in this revelation of what is hidden, because this can only be from God—the heart is depraved and inscrutable, and who is able to know it? I the Lord search the heart and probe the loins (Jer 17:9); man sees the appearances, but the Lord sees the heart (1 Sam 16:7)—asks, how do you know me? Here we can recognize Nathanael’s humility, because, although he had been praised, he did not become elated, but held this praise of himself suspect. My people, who call you blessed, they are deceiving you (Isa 3:12). 325. Praeterita vero absentia insinuat, cum dicit priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te, ubi 325. Then he touches on matters in the past, saying, before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. primo ponitur denuntiatio Christi; First we have the statement of Christ; secundo confessio Nathanaelis, ibi respondit et Nathanael, et ait: Rabbi, tu es Filius Dei. second, the confession of Nathanael: Nathanael answered him and said: Rabbi, you are the Son of God. 326. Circa primum sciendum est, quod Nathanael posset habere duplicem suspicionem de Christo: unam quod dixisset Christus praemissa, volens ei blandiri et ad amicitiam suam trahere; aliam quod ea quae dixit supra, ab alio cognovisset. Ut ergo suspicionem auferat, et ad altiora erigat, illa occulta manifestat quae nullus nisi divinitus scire potuisset, ea videlicet quae statim circa ipsum Nathanaelem contigerant: et hoc est quod dicit priusquam te Philippus vocaret, cum esses sub ficu, vidi te. Ad litteram enim, sub arbore fici fuerat Nathanael, cum a Philippo vocaretur: quod Christus virtute divinitatis coniecerat, quia, ut dicitur Eccli. XXIII, v. 28, oculi Domini multo lucidiores super solem. 326. As to the first, we should note that Nathanael might have had two misgivings about Christ. One, that Christ said this in order to win his friendship by flattery; the other, that Christ had learned what he knew from others. So, to remove Nathanael’s suspicions and raise him to higher things, Christ reveals certain hidden matters that no one could know except in a divine way, that is, things that related only to Nathanael. He refers to these when he says, before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you. In the literal sense, this means that Nathanael was under a fig tree when he was called by Philip—which Christ knew by divine power, for the eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun (Sir 23:28). Mystice autem per ficum designatur peccatum: tum quia invenimus arborem fici maledictam folia sola habentem, et non fructum, Matth. XXI, 19 quod factum est in figuram peccati; tum quia Adam et Eva cum peccassent, de foliis ficus perizomata fecerunt. Dicit ergo cum esses sub ficu, idest, sub umbra peccati antequam ad gratiam vocatus esses, ego vidi te, scilicet oculo misericordiae: nam ipsa Dei praedestinatio oculo pietatis respicit praedestinatos sub peccatis viventes; Eph. I, 4: elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem etc. Et de isto oculo loquitur hic. Vidi te, praedestinando scilicet ab aeterno. In the mystical sense, the fig tree signifies sin: both because we find a fig tree, bearing only leaves but no fruit, being cursed, as a symbol of sin (Matt 11:19); and because Adam and Eve, after they had sinned, made clothes from fig leaves. So he says here, when you were under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, I saw you, with the eye of mercy; for God’s predestination looks upon the predestined, who are living under sin, with an eye of pity, for he chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4). And he speaks of this eye here: I saw you, by predestining you from eternity. Vel, secundum Gregorium, cum esses sub ficu, idest sub umbra legis, vidi te. Hebr. X, v. 1: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum etc. Or, the meaning is, according to Gregory: when you were under the fig tree, i.e., under the shadow of the law, I saw you. The law has only a shadow of the good things to come (Heb 10:1).