data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85d41/85d41628fa45ba531cf8930c2275267563719929" alt=""
The notices concerning Nathanael, Philip’s acquaintance, are more detailed and more interesting than in the case of any other of the five; and it is not a little surprising that we should be told so much in this place about one concerning whom we otherwise know almost nothing. …Be this as it may, we know on the best authority that Nathanael was a man of great moral excellence. No sooner had Jesus seen him than He exclaimed, “Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!” The words suggest the idea of one whose heart was pure; in whom was no doublemindedness, impure motive, pride, or unholy passion: a man of gentle, meditative spirit, in whose mind heaven lay reflected like the blue sky in a still lake on a calm summer day.
What I find so refreshing about Bruce’s commentary is that he is able to bring new insights into texts that have become perhaps overly familiar. Nathanael is the one, of course, who asks, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” At first glance, these words might strike us as sarcastic. But Bruce has a different take on them:
One hardly expects such prejudice in one so meek and amiable; and yet, on reflection, we perceive it to be quite characteristic. Nathanael’s prejudice against Nazareth sprung not from pride, as in the case of the people of Judea who despised the Galileans in general, but from humility. He was a Galilean himself, and as much an object of Jewish contempt as were the Nazarenes. His inward thought was, “Surely the Messiah can never come from among a poor despised people such as we are - from Nazareth or any other Galilean town or village!” He timidly allowed his mind to be biased by a current opinion originating in feelings with which he had no sympathy; a fault common to men whose piety, though pure and sincere, defers too much to human authority, and who thus become the slaves of sentiments utterly unworthy of them.
Because he is willing to take another look at the Gospels to see Jesus and his disciples in a new light, Bruce is thus able to draw original and relevant conclusions. Nathanael ought to be an example to the rest of us, Bruce says, because even though he has some preconceived religious ideas, he subjects them to honest investigation.
While Nathanael was not free from prejudices, he showed his guilelessness in being willing to have them removed. He came and saw. This openness to conviction is the mark of moral integrity. The guileless man dogmatizes not, but investigates, and therefore always comes right in the end. The man of bad, dishonest heart, on the contrary, does not come and see. Deeming it his interest to remain in his present mind, he studiously avoids looking at aught which does not tend to confirm his foregone conclusions. He may, indeed, profess a desire for inquiry, like certain Israelites of whom we read in this same Gospel, of another stamp than Nathanael, but sharing with him the prejudice against Galilee.
I’m left wondering, what would it take for me to be someone “in whom there is no guile”? A good place to begin would be to re-think so many of my religious conclusions that I have taken for granted, in the same way Nathanael was willing to. It seems to me that's an approach that began to catch on in a big way the wider the Christian circle spread out from the center.