of Whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of

Nazareth, the Son of Joseph' (1:45).

Instead of using the title of `the Messiah' Philip refers to the

fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy that pointed Him out. It is

unjustifiable to magnify the added words, `the son of Joseph' into a

text from which to discuss the validity of the virgin birth. The Gospel

of Matthew, which clearly sets Joseph aside so far as actual parenthood

is concerned (1:18-25), gives the genealogy of the Saviour through

`Joseph the husband of Mary', and Luke who gives very explicit

information about the virgin birth of Christ, says in Luke 3:23: `And

Jesus Himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was

supposed) the son of Joseph'. Mary, herself, who certainly knew the

facts concerning the birth of Christ, did not hesitate to say to Him,

`Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing' (Luke 2:48). Philip's

remark therefore cannot rightly be made into a theological term. He

said what all said, `the son of Joseph', for such He was `in law'.

The testimony of Nathanael gathers up what has been distributed

among the witnesses, and brings the opening set of testimony to a

climax. Like Thomas, Nathanael was not easily convinced. He seized

on the reference to `Nazareth', saying, `Can there any good thing come

out of Nazareth?' (1:46).  This was the attitude of mind which

prompted the rejoinder of the officers of the chief priest: `Search, and

look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet' (7:52). The fact that John

records the opinion of Nathanael regarding Nazareth, and the opinion

of the leaders of the Jews regarding Galilee (and we must remember

that Christ was called `the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee' Matt.

21:11), suggests that he was here meeting an objection.

Some who knew the prophecy concerning Bethlehem may not have

known how it could be reconciled with the reference to Nazareth.

Here it is faced, though not explained. Possibly the emphasis on

Bethlehem fits the kingdom purpose of Matthew, and the emphasis on

`Galilee of the nations' and despised Nazareth, fits the world-wide

purpose of John's Gospel. Apparently Philip did not debate the matter

with Nathanael, but used the argument that had proved irresistible with

Andrew and John, `Come and see'. As Nathanael approached the

Lord, the Saviour said: `Behold an Israelite indeed in whom is no

guile' (1:47). Had there been a trace of guile in Nathanael's character

he would have affected a little modesty and disclaimed such an