John 1. 49: Nathanael replied, ‘Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel!’
The writer of the Fourth Gospel was anxious to define his subject matter in the first chapter. It starts with a hymn about the pre-existent Word; then he ties this in to the story of Jesus and shows us that they are the same, He does this partly through the early introduction of the figure of the Baptist, who describes the intervention of the Holy Spirit at the baptism of Jesus and himself testifies that Jesus is the Lamb of God and the Son of God. Andrew then calls Jesus the Messiah. This is underlined with the declaration of Nathanael, so that we are convinced of the authority of Jesus by the time his ministry has begun.
The writer, whom we might as well call John, is, of course, indulging in some sleight of hand. Nathanael cannot, at that stage, have meant that Jesus was divine, since as a true Israelite he believed in a unique God; nor did he necessarily envisage the overthrow of Roman rule and the restoration of the Davidic monarchy. He is simply inspired by Psalm 2 [vv. 6&7]: ‘I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill. I will tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to me, ‘You are my son; today have I begotten you.’ This psalm was about the Messiah and that is what Nathanael is represented as talking about. Of course Psalm 2 became a favourite somewhat later on with Christian preachers. All four Gospel writers say a heavenly voice called Jesus the Son of God at his baptism. In Acts, Paul is reported to have quoted this psalm in his sermon at Athens, and the phrase about the begetting of the Son is repeated twice in Hebrews. But I suggest that we should be wary of thinking that fourth-century ideas about the Trinity, which twenty-first century ideas reflect, were general in New Testament times, other than the statements at the beginning of John’s Gospel on which our subsequent thinking was modelled. Let me remind you that John said: ‘. . . grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known’.
There is a big difference between calling Jesus the Son of God and calling him God the only Son. In classical times anybody who had any claim to fame, from Achilles to Augustus, could claim semi-divine status through the parenthood of a god. It is not clear how far this commanded devotion, rather than the acceptance of conventional forms. But it is clear that calling a man a Son of God sometimes meant little more than an heartfelt compliment, even in Jewish circles. To call him the King of Israel, on the other hand, was unmistakable; it meant he was the Messiah, so long awaited. But. I repeat, we cannot be sure what Nathanael’s words may have been intended to mean. Was he talking primarily in political terms, like the disciples on the road to Emmaus?
I think it important, when one is reading the Gospels, to keep in mind that they are not like newspapers, reporting things as they happen. They were written long afterwards in the context of the early Church. Our story about Nathanael is designed to instruct, to be read out at Sunday worship; it is not an impartial report of an early incident in the mission of Jesus. It is intended to tell us from the start that Jesus was the Messiah, as shown later by his life, death, and resurrection, even though he rejected political activity. What Nathanael may have thought is, perhaps, not really the point; John told no more stories about him, though he rates a mention in his last chapter.
The concept of the Messiah is not of great interest to us, though it may still be important to Jews converted to Christianity and to other Christians whose religion is basically that of the Old Testament. In the same way, Matthew’s view that the coming of Jesus was significant as an endorsement of Old Testament prophecy leaves me cold. In fact, the theme, so emphasized by our liturgy, that Jesus is gong to come again, although it is attributed to Jesus himself in the Gospels, seems to me to be another fruit of the failed Jewish expectations of the Messiah. We have had to wait too long for the future Second Coming of Jesus to seem a very significant message. What is significant is Nathanael’s recognition that God sent a unique expression of himself into the world at that time. The trouble with all this Messiah, Second Coming, complex of ideas is its unfinished, incomplete character. It suggests that there is more to tell us, that there are to be new revelations later on. It encourages people just to sit back and wait. Against this, I believe that the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, with the four brief accounts of his ideas which have come down to us, represent all we need. This is the Christian religion, and this is the information you have about God and about Life and about how you are to live and how you are to manage with being a human being. There is nothing to be gained by hoping for a further revelation; people have been waiting for it two thousand years.
In fact, the story records that Jesus thought that on this occasion Nathanael was jumping the gun. A little clairvoyance was not in fact what Jesus had come for. I suggest that too often our image of God is too small and our expectations too limited, so that, like Nathanael, we are satisfied with less than what God is ready to offer. Jesus is the same, yesterday, today, and for ever. If we can grasp that message we can, in him, live life to the full in the present, neither yearning after past prophecies nor looking to the future to change our lives. What Jesus offers is salvation now. It is now that he is the Son of God and the King of Israel.
Amen
Alan Goodison