And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

“(Hom. xix. 1, 2) And therefore he said not Messias, but the Messias. Mark the obedience of Peter from the very first; ho went immediately without delay, as appears from the next words: And he brought him to Jesus. Nor let us blame him as too yielding, because he did not ask many questions, before he received the word. It is reasonable to suppose that his brother had told him all, and sufficiently fully; but the Evangelists often make omissions for the sake of brevity. But, besides this, it is not absolutely said that he did believe, but only, He took him to Jesus; i. e. to learn from the mouth of Jesus Himself, what Andrew had reported. Our Lord begins now Himself to reveal the things of His Divinity, and to exhibit them gradually by prophecy. For prophecies are no less persuasive than miracles; inasmuch as they are preeminently God’s work, and are beyond the power of devils to imitate, while miracles may be phantasy or appearance: the foretelling future events with certainty is an attribute of the incorruptible nature alone: And when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonas; thou shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.”

“Having set down the fruit that came from the preaching of John, and of his disciple, the Evangelist consequently makes clear the fruit that came from the preaching of Christ; and first he treats of the conversion of one disciple to the preaching of Christ; second, of the conversion of others through the preaching of the disciple who had been converted to Christ, there: "Philip found Nathanael," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First, the occasion of the disciple to be called is set down; second, the calling of this disciple itself is subjoined; third, the condition of the disciple who was called is described, there: "Now Philip was from Bethsaida." The occasion, indeed, of the calling was the departure of Jesus from Judea. And therefore it is said "on the next day he willed to go forth," namely Jesus from Judea, into Galilee, "and he found Philip." Now a threefold reason is assigned for Jesus' going forth into Galilee: two, indeed, literal, of which one is that, after he had been baptized by John, wishing to defer honor to the Baptist, he went forth into Galilee, withdrawing from Judea, lest by his presence he should obscure and diminish John's teaching office, while it still had standing: teaching us to anticipate one another in honor, as it is said in Romans 12:10. The second reason is that in Galilee there are no distinguished persons, below in John 7:52: "a prophet does not arise from Galilee," etc.; and therefore Jesus willed to go forth thither, and to choose from there the princes of the world, who are greater than the prophets, that through this he might show forth his power. Psalm 106:35: "he set the desert into pools of waters." The third reason is mystical: because Galilee is interpreted "transmigration." He willed therefore to go forth from Judea into Galilee in order to intimate that "on the next day," that is, in the day of grace, namely of the Gospel, he would go forth from Judea into Galilee, that is, to the Gentiles to be saved; below in John 7:35: "will he go into the dispersion of the Gentiles?" The calling, therefore, of the disciple is to following; and therefore he says "he found Philip, and said to him: Follow me." And note that sometimes a man finds God, but as it were unknown; Proverbs 8:35: "he who shall find me, shall find life, and shall draw salvation from the Lord." Sometimes God finds a man, but so as to manifest him and to magnify him; Psalm 88:21: "I have found David my servant." And thus Christ found Philip, in order to call him to faith and grace: and therefore he says at once "Follow me." There is a question why Jesus did not from the beginning call disciples. To which Chrysostom responds that he did not wish from the beginning to call anyone, before someone adhered to him spontaneously through the preaching of John: because men are drawn more by example than by words. Exodus 26: "the curtain draws the curtain." It is also asked why Philip at once, at one word, followed Christ, whereas Andrew followed him after hearing about Christ from John, and Peter from Andrew. To this there is a threefold response. One, that Philip had already been instructed by John; because, according to one exposition set down above, that other one, who together with Andrew followed Christ, was Philip. Another reason is that the voice of Christ had a certain power such that it moved the heart not only exteriorly but also interiorly; Jeremiah 23:29: "my words are as fire." For the voice of Christ was not spoken only to exterior things, but it inflamed the interior parts of the faithful to his love. Third, because perhaps Philip had already been instructed about Christ by Andrew and Peter, because they were from the same town; which the Evangelist seems to hint at through this, that he adds "now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter." In which the condition of the disciple who was called is expressed: that he was from Bethsaida. And thus it accords with the mystery. For Bethsaida is interpreted "house of hunters": so as to show what Philip, Peter, and Andrew then were in spirit, and that from the house of hunters he was fittingly calling hunters to capture souls unto life. Jeremiah 16:16: "I will send my hunters," and so on. Consequently there is set down the fruit of the disciple who was converted to Christ; and first is set down the beginning of the fruit made by the disciple; second, the consummation made through Christ, there: "Jesus saw Nathanael." Concerning the first he does three things. First is set down the announcement of Philip; second, the response of Nathanael, there: "and Nathanael said"; third, the consequent admonition of Philip, there: "Philip said to him." Concerning the first, attend that, just as Andrew, perfectly converted, was eager to bring his brother to Christ, so too Philip his brother Nathanael. And therefore he says "Philip found Nathanael," whom perhaps he was seeking, just as Andrew had sought Peter: which was a sign of perfect conversion. "And he said to him." Nathanael is interpreted "gift of God"; and that anyone be converted to Christ is from the gift of God. Now he announces to him that all the prophecies and the law have their completion, and that the desires of the holy fathers were not frustrated but were verified, and that what had been promised by God to their desires had now been fulfilled. "Him of whom Moses wrote in the law, and the prophets, we have found, Jesus"; through which it is given to be understood that Nathanael was sufficiently skilled in the law, and that Philip too, already instructed about Christ, wished to lead Nathanael to Christ from things known to him, namely from the law and the prophets, and therefore he says "him of whom Moses wrote," and so on. For Moses wrote about Christ; below in John 5:46: "if you believed Moses, you would perhaps believe me also: for he wrote about me." Likewise the prophets wrote about Christ; Acts 10:43: "to him all the prophets give testimony." Attend also that Philip says three things about Christ, consonant with the law and the prophets. First indeed the name; whence he said "we have found Jesus." And this accords with the prophets: Isaiah 19:20: "I will send them a savior," etc.; Habakkuk last chapter, 18: "I will exult in God my Jesus." Second indeed the lineage, whence he traced the human origin when he says "the son of Joseph," namely who was of the house of David and his family. And although Christ did not draw his origin from him, nevertheless he drew it from the Virgin, who was of the same lineage as Joseph. Now he calls him "the son of Joseph," because he was reckoned to be his son, to whom, namely, his mother was betrothed. Whence it is said in Luke 3:23: "as it was supposed, the son of Joseph." Nor is it a wonder if Philip called him the son of Joseph, since even his mother, conscious of the divine incarnation, called him his son; Luke 2:48: "your father and I, sorrowing, sought you." And if indeed anyone is called the son of someone because he is nourished by him, Joseph much more could be called the father of Jesus, although according to the flesh he was not the father: because he had both nourished him, and was the spouse of the Virgin mother. Now it is said here by Philip not as though he were born from the union of Joseph and the Virgin, but because he knew that Christ was to be born of the generation of David, of whose house and family Joseph was, to whom Mary was betrothed. And this too accords with the prophets: Jeremiah 23:5: "I will raise up to David a just branch," and so on. Third, he commemorates his native place, saying "from Nazareth": not because he was born in it, indeed in Bethlehem, but because in it he had been nourished. For because his nativity was unknown to many, but the place where he had been nourished was known to many, therefore Philip was silent about Bethlehem, and put down Nazareth. And this indeed accords with the sayings of the prophets; for, Isaiah 11:1: "there shall come forth a rod from the root of Jesse, and a flower," or a "Nazarene," according to another reading, "shall ascend from his root." Consequently, when he says "and Nathanael said to him," etc., the response of Nathanael is set down: which indeed can be read both assertively and interrogatively; and in either way such a response accords with the words of Philip. For if, according as Augustine wishes, it is read assertively, the sense is: "from Nazareth can there be something good." That is, from a city of such great name, it can be that something of highest grace should arise for us, or some outstanding teacher, who may preach to us the flower of virtues and the cleanness of holiness. For Nazareth is interpreted "flower." From which it is given to be understood that Nathanael, most learned in the law, having scrutinized the Scriptures, foreknew that from Nazareth a savior was to be expected, which the other Scribes and Pharisees did not easily know; and therefore, when Philip said "we have found Jesus from Nazareth," raised up in hope, he responded: "truly from Nazareth there can be," and so on. But if it is read, according to Chrysostom, interrogatively, then the sense is: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" As if to say: all the other things which you say seem to be credible, because both the name and the lineage are consonant with the prophets, but this which you say, "from Nazareth," does not seem possible. For Nathanael had held through the Scriptures that Christ must come from Bethlehem, according to that of Matthew 2:6: "and you, Bethlehem, land of Juda, are by no means least among the princes of Juda: for out of you shall come forth the leader who shall rule my people Israel." And therefore, not finding Philip's statement to agree with the prophetic proclamation, prudently and gently he inquires about the truth of the saying: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" Consequently the admonition of Philip is set down: "Philip said to him: Come and see"; which admonition indeed accords with either response of Nathanael. Assertively indeed, so that it be said: you say that from Nazareth something good can be, but I say that that good which I announce to you is so great and so magnificent that I am not able to express it; and therefore "come, and see." Interrogatively, however, it is read thus. You, wondering, say: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" reckoning this to be impossible according to the Scriptures; but if you are willing to experience what I have experienced, you will understand that the things I say are true; and therefore "come, and see." Philip indeed draws Nathanael to Christ, not broken by his questionings, he who knows that for the rest he will not contradict, if he has tasted the words and doctrine of Christ: and in this Philip followed Christ, who above, to those questioning him about his dwelling place, responded: "come, and see." Psalm 33:6: "come to him, and be enlightened." Consequently, when he says "Jesus saw Nathanael," the consummation of the fruit through Christ is set down. Now it must be known that some are converted to Christ in a twofold way: some through miracles seen and experienced in themselves or in others; some indeed through internal inspirations, and through prophecy and the foreknowledge of hidden future things. But the mode of being converted through prophecies and the foreknowledge of future things is more efficacious than through miracles. For the demons themselves, and some men by their aid, can put forward certain marvels: but to predict future things is the work of divine power alone; Isaiah 41:23: "announce also the things that are to come, and we will say that you are gods"; 1 Corinthians 14:22: "prophecies are given to the faithful." And hence it is that the Lord draws Nathanael to faith not through miracles, but through the foretelling of hidden things; and therefore he says of him "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile." Where he intimates to him three hidden things, namely hidden present things, which are in the heart, past deeds, and future heavenly things: which three things indeed to know is a divine, not a human, work. He intimates to him hidden present things when he says "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile": where indeed first is set down Christ's foretelling; second, Nathanael's inquiry, there: "whence do you know me?" He says therefore, concerning the first, "Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him," as if to say: before he arrived at him, he said of him: "behold a true Israelite," and so on. Now he said this of him before he arrived at him, because if he had said this after he had come to Jesus, Nathanael could have believed that Jesus had heard this from Philip. Now he said "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile": now Israel has two interpretations. For in one way it is interpreted "most upright"; Isaiah 44:2: "fear not, my servant most upright, whom I have chosen," where the Gloss says that Israel is interpreted "most upright." In another way Israel is interpreted "a man seeing God." And according to either, Nathanael is truly an Israelite: for because he is called upright in whom there is no guile, therefore he is called "truly an Israelite, in whom there is no guile"; as if to say: truly you represent your lineage, because you are upright and without guile. But because through cleanness and simplicity a man sees God, therefore he said "a true Israelite"; that is, you are a man truly seeing God, because you are simple and without guile. Now he said "in whom there is no guile," lest it be believed that he had spoken maliciously: "from Nazareth can there be something good?" as if questioning. Augustine, however, expounds otherwise. For it is manifest that all are born under sin. Those therefore are called guileful who, having sin in the heart, exteriorly feign themselves just; but he who is a sinner, and confesses himself a sinner, is not guileful. He said therefore "behold a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile," not that he had no sin, not that a physician was not necessary to him, because no one is so born that he needs no physician; but in him he praised the confession of sin. Consequently, when he says "whence do you know me?" Nathanael's inquiry is set down. For Nathanael, wondering at the power of God in the manifestation of hidden things, because this is of God alone: Jeremiah 17:9: "the heart of man is depraved and inscrutable, and who shall know it? I the Lord who search the heart and prove the reins"; and 1 Kings 16:7: "men see the things that appear, but God beholds the heart," therefore he asks "whence do you know me?" In which the humility of Nathanael is commended: because although he was praised, he was not lifted up; but he held his own praise as suspect: against which is said Isaiah 3:12: "my people, those who call you blessed, they themselves deceive you." He intimates the past things that were absent when he says "before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you," where first is set down the declaration of Christ; second, the confession of Nathanael, there: "Nathanael answered and said: Rabbi, you are the Son of God." Concerning the first it must be known that Nathanael could have a twofold suspicion about Christ: one, that Christ had said the aforesaid things wishing to flatter him and to draw him to his friendship; another, that the things which he said above he had known from another. Therefore, in order to remove the suspicion, and to raise him to higher things, he manifests those hidden things which no one could have known except divinely, namely those which had happened just then concerning Nathanael himself: and this is what he says "before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." For, according to the letter, Nathanael had been under the fig tree when he was called by Philip: which Christ had discerned by the power of divinity, because, as is said in Ecclesiasticus 23:28, "the eyes of the Lord are far brighter than the sun." Mystically, however, by the fig tree sin is designated: both because we find the fig tree cursed, having leaves only, and not fruit, Matthew 21:19, which was done as a figure of sin; and because Adam and Eve, when they had sinned, made themselves aprons from fig leaves. He says therefore "when you were under the fig tree," that is, under the shadow of sin, before you were called to grace, "I saw you," namely with the eye of mercy: for the very predestination of God, with the eye of piety, looks upon the predestined living under sins; Ephesians 1:4: "he chose us before the foundation of the world," and so on. And it is of this eye that he speaks here. "I saw you," namely by predestinating from eternity. Or, according to Gregory, "when you were under the fig tree," that is, under the shadow of the law, "I saw you." Hebrews 10:1: "the law, having a shadow of the good things to come," and so on. Now Nathanael, immediately turned to this, and knowing the power of divinity in Christ, breaks forth into a voice of confession and praise, saying "Rabbi, you are the Son of God." Where he considers three things about Christ, namely the fullness of knowledge, when he says "Rabbi," which is interpreted "master"; as if he said, you are perfect in knowledge. He already presaged what is said in Matthew 23:10: "your master is one, Christ." Second, the excellence of singular grace, when he says "you are the Son of God." For that a man be a son of God through adoption, is only of grace; and also to be a son of God through union, which is proper to the man Christ, is through grace: because not from any preceding merits, but through the grace of union, that man is the Son of God. Third indeed, the immensity of power, when he says "you are the king of Israel," that is, awaited by Israel as king and defender; Daniel 7:14: "his power, an eternal power," and so on. But concerning this a question arises, according to Chrysostom. Since Peter, who after many miracles, after great doctrine, confessed what Nathanael here confesses about Christ, "you are the Son of God," merited to be beatified, the Lord saying: "blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona," etc., why was Nathanael too, who had said the like before seeing miracles and receiving doctrine, not beatified? And to this Chrysostom responds that the cause of this is that, although Nathanael and Peter uttered the same words, nevertheless the intention of each was not the same. Peter indeed confessed that Christ is the true Son of God by nature, namely such that he was man in such a way that nevertheless he was true God; but this one confessed him to be the Son of God through adoption, according to that of Psalm 81:6: "I have said: you are gods, and all of you sons of the Most High." And this is clear through the following words. For if he had understood him to be the Son of God by nature, he would not have said "you are the king of Israel" only, but of the whole world. This too is clear, because to the faith of Peter Christ added nothing, as being perfect, but he said he would build his Church upon that confession. But Nathanael, as being deficient in the greater part of his confession, he elevates to greater things, namely to the knowledge of his divinity. Whence he said "you shall see greater things than these." Where the third thing is noted, namely the intimation of future things, as if to say: because I have told you past things, you believe me to be the Son of God through adoption and king of Israel only, but I will lead you to a greater knowledge, namely that you may believe me to be the natural Son of God and king of all ages. And therefore there follows "amen, amen I say to you, you shall see heaven opened, and the Angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man," where, according to Chrysostom, the Lord wishes to prove that he is the true Son of God, and God. For it is proper to the Angels to minister and to be subject, Psalm 102: "bless the Lord, all his Angels, his ministers, who do his will." When therefore you shall see that the Angels will administer to me, it will be certain to you that I am the true Son of God. Hebrews 1:6: "when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says: and let all the Angels of God adore him." But when did the apostles see this? They saw it, I say, in the passion, when an Angel was present to him, comforting him, Luke 22:43. Likewise in the resurrection, when the apostles found two Angels standing above the sepulcher. Similarly in the ascension, when they said to the apostles, Acts 1:11: "men of Galilee, why do you wonder, looking up into heaven? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, shall come in the same way as you have seen him going into heaven." And because he had already told him true things about past matters, it was the more credible to him what he foretells about the future, when he says "you shall see." For it is an evident argument that he tells true things about future matters who had manifested the truth about hidden past things. Now he says "upon the Son of man the Angels ascending and descending," because according to mortal flesh he was made a little lower than the Angels: and insofar as this, the Angels ascend and descend upon him; but according as he is the Son of God, he himself is above the Angels, as has been said. According to Augustine, however, in the aforesaid words he beautifully manifests his divinity. For it is read in Genesis 28:12 that Jacob saw a ladder, and Angels ascending and descending. And Jacob, understanding what he saw, rising up anointed the stone with oil, and then said: "truly the Lord is in this place." This stone is Christ, whom the builders rejected; and he is anointed with the invisible oil of the Holy Spirit; but he is set up as a memorial pillar, because he was to be the foundation of the Church, as is said in 1 Corinthians 3:11: "no one can lay another foundation besides that which has been laid." Now the Angels ascend and descend, inasmuch as they are present to him by serving and ministering. He said therefore: "amen, amen I say to you, you shall see heaven opened," etc., as if to say: because you are a true Israelite, attend to that which Israel saw, so that you may believe me to be that one who is signified by the stone anointed by Jacob: for you too shall see upon him the Angels ascending and descending. Or the Angels are the preachers, according to Augustine, preaching Christ; Isaiah 18:2: "go, swift Angels, to a nation rent and torn to pieces"; who indeed ascend through contemplation, just as Paul had ascended even to the third heaven, as is said in 2 Corinthians 12:2, and descend through the instruction of their neighbors "upon the Son of man," that is, to the honor of Christ: because, as is said in 2 Corinthians 4:5: "for we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ our Lord." But that they may ascend and descend, heaven is opened, because it is necessary that heavenly grace be given to the preachers, that they may ascend and descend. Psalm 67:9: "the heavens dropped down," etc.; Revelation 4:1: "afterward I saw heaven opened," and so on. Now the reason why Nathanael is not chosen as an apostle after so great a confession of faith is this, that Christ did not wish that the conversion of the world to faith be ascribed to human wisdom, but only to the power of God. And therefore he did not wish to choose Nathanael, most skilled in the law, as an apostle; but he chose the simple and the unlearned; as is said in 1 Corinthians 1:26: "not many wise ones... but the foolish things of the world God has chosen."”

“Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, or of John. Jesus, who knew all things, knew his name, and at the first meeting told him he should hereafter be called Cephas, or Petrus, a rock, designing to make him the chief or head of his whole Church. See Matthew xvi. 18. (Witham) — Cephas is a Syriac word, its import is the same as rock or stone. And St. Paul commonly calleth him by this name: whereas others, both Greeks and Latins, call him by the Greek appellation, Peter; which signifies exactly the same thing. Hence St. Cyril saith, that our Saviour, by foretelling that his name should be now no more Simon, but Peter, did by the word itself aptly signify, that on him, as on a rock most firm, he would build his Church. (Lib. ii. chap. 12. in Joan.)”