6 Common Men, Uncommon Calling—Part 5: Philip, Bartholomew (Luke 6:14e, f)
Philip and Bartholomew (6:14e, f)
All those whom God calls to lead His people must meet the standards set forth in Scripture (cf. 1 Tim. 3:1–12; Titus 1:6–9). But beyond those required standards, the Lord uses men of widely divergent temperaments and personalities to lead His church.
Some are bold, assertive men of action. When Moses “saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brethren…. he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Ex. 2:11–12). Despite his doubts about his speaking ability (Ex. 4:10–13), Moses repeatedly confronted Pharaoh with God’s demand that he let Israel go. He also did not hesitate to confront his own people when they complained (Ex. 17:2), sinned (Ex. 32:19–28), or challenged his leadership (Num. 16:1–50). His aggressive, forceful personality ultimately cost Moses the privilege of entering the Promised Land after he disobeyed God. Faced with yet another round of grumbling and complaining by the Israelites (Num. 20:2–5), Moses sought God’s counsel (v.6).The Lord instructed him to take his rod and speak to a rock, which would then produce the water the people were crying for (vv. 7–8). But instead of speaking to the rock, Moses spoke to the people, angrily denouncing them as rebels (vv. 9–10). He then struck the rock with his rod (v. 11), thereby, ironically, also rebelling against God (Num.27:14). As a result, Moses forfeited the right to lead the people into Canaan (Num.20:12).
Elijah was another bold leader. In the third year (1 Kings 18:1) of a devastating drought God had proclaimed through him (1 Kings 17:1), Elijah was confronted by Israel’s wicked king Ahab. The king angrily said to him, “Is this you, you troubler of Israel?” (1 Kings 18:17). Not intimidated in the least, Elijah replied, “I have not troubled Israel, but you and your father’s house have, because you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord and you have followed the Baals” (v. 18). Elijah then fearlessly challenged hundreds of false prophets to a public contest to see who was the true God, the Lord or Baal, and ordered the false prophets to be killed afterwards (vv. 19–40).
Later, after Ahab had murdered a man so he could seize his vineyard (1 Kings 21:1–16), Elijah once again boldly confronted him. Ahab said to him sarcastically “Have you found me, O my enemy?” Refusing to back down Elijah replied, “I have found you, because you have sold yourself to do evil in the sight of the Lord” (v 20). He then pronounced God’s judgment on Ahab and his evil wife Jezebel (vv.21–26). Shocked and terrified, Ahab “tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and fasted, and he lay in sackcloth and went about despondently” (v. 27). Because the king humbled himself, the Lord postponed the judgment (v. 29). Toward the end of his ministry, Elijah also rebuked Ahab’s son and successor as king, Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:3–4).That confrontation included Elijah dramatically calling down fire from heaven to consume two detachments of soldiers sent to bring him to the king (vv.9–12).
The apostle Paul is the New Testament model of a bold, courageous leader. He fearlessly preached the gospel, in the face of threats, hostility, and persecution everywhere he went. That opposition began immediately after his conversion in Damascus, where his proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah so enraged the Jews that they sought to kill him (Acts 9:22–24). Paul faced similar opposition from his countrymen in Antioch (13:46), Iconium (14:1–2), Corinth (18:4–6, 12–16), Jerusalem (21:27–22:23; cf. 21:10–13), before the Sanhedrin (22:30–23:10), and in Rome (28:16–31).
Paul’s preaching of the gospel also aroused hostility from the Gentiles. In Philippi he was beaten and imprisoned (16:16–40); in Athens he was mocked by the skeptical Greek philosophers (17:16–34); in Ephesus his success in preaching the gospel sparked a riot by the devotees of the pagan goddess Artemis (19:23–41). Paul also courageously testified to the Lord Jesus Christ before Gentile authorities, including Felix (24:1–26), Festus (25:1–12), Agrippa (26:1–32), and the emperor (25:12, 21–27; cf. 28:17–19). When the ship taking him to Rome encountered asevere storm, Paul, though only a prisoner, took charge of the situation (27:9–10, 21–26, 30–36).
Unlike many pastors today, Paul did not hesitate to denounce false teachers. He confronted the “Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus” on the island of Cyprus (Acts 13:6), the Judaizers at Antioch (15:1–2), and Hymenaeus and Alexander at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:20). He also repeatedly warned Christians to beware of such “savage wolves” (Acts 20:29; cf. 2 Cor. 11:2–4; Gal. 1:6–7; 6:12–13; Phil 3:2, 18–19; Col. 2:8, 18–23; 1 Thess.2:14–16; 1Tim. 1:3–7; 4:1–3; 6:3–5, 20–21; 2 Tim.2:14, 16–18, 23; 3:1–9, 13;4:14–15; Titus 1:9–16; 3:9–10).
Paul also confronted sinning believers, something that many pastors today are also reluctant to do. He rebuked the Corinthians (2 Cor. 10–13), the Galatians (Gal.3–5), a man guilty of incest (1 Cor.5:1–5), and undisciplined people who refused to work at Thessalonica (2 Thess. 3:6–12).
But not every leader is a Moses, Elijah, or Paul. The Lord also uses quiet, contemplative, analytical, cautious men. One such man was Paul’s dear son in the faith, Timothy Timothy was unquestionably a man of conviction, in whom Paul had the utmost confidence (Phil. 2:19–20). The apostle sent him to deal with the troubled situation at Corinth (1 Cor. 4:17), to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:2, 6), and possibly to Philippi (Phil. 2:19). Paul also installed Timothy as the pastor of the important church at Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:1–3). Timothy endured imprisonment for the cause of Christ (Heb. 13:23), possibly because of his loyal service to Paul (cf. 2 Tim.4:9, 11, 13, 21).
Yet Timothy could also be fearful, hesitant, and lacking in self-confidence. Paul had to encourage and exhort him not to allow others to intimidate him because of his youth and lack of experience (1 Tim. 4:12–16). Timothy also needed to be more faithful in the exercise of his spiritual gift (2 Tim. 1:6), to stop being timid (v.7; cf. 1 Cor. 16:10), and not to be ashamed to be identified with either the Lord or Paul, but be willing to suffer for the gospel (v. 8). Later in that same epistle, the apostle repeated his exhortation to Timothy to renew his commitment to his ministry and to be willing to suffer for the cause of Christ (2:1, 3).
Like all spiritual leaders, the apostles also were men of diverse temperaments. As noted in earlier chapters of this volume, Peter, James, and John were dynamic, upfront, take-charge individuals. Andrew, consistently overshadowed by his more prominent brother Peter, operated more in the background. The next two individuals on Luke’s list of the Twelve, Philip and Nathanael (Bartholomew), were also quiet, analytical, reflective men content to work behind the scenes.
PHILIP
Philip (6:14e)
In all four of the New Testament lists of the Twelve, Philip’s name appears fifth overall and first in the second group of four, which likely means that he was the leader of that group. Philip is a Greek name, which means “lover of horses.” Like the rest of the Twelve, Philip was Jewish, but his Jewish name is not recorded. Since he had a Greek name, Philip may have come from a family of Hellenistic Jews (cf. Acts 6:1), who had adopted the Greek language and some aspects of Greek customs and culture. Like Andrew and Peter (John 1:44), Philip was originally from Bethsaida (John 12:21). As its name implies (Bethsaida means “house of fishing”), Bethsaida was primarily a fishing village, although Philip the Tetrarch, son of Herod the Great (Luke 3:1), enlarged and beautified it. Growing up in the same small village, Philip, Peter, and Andrew undoubtedly knew each other well. Like Peter and Andrew, Philip was probably also a fisherman (he was most likely one of the two unnamed disciples who went fishing with Peter in John 21:2–3). Philip is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels except in the lists of the apostles; all that is known about him comes from four incidents recorded in the gospel of John.
Philip first appears in John 1:43. The day after He called Andrew, John, and Peter (vv. 35–42), Jesus “purposed to go into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, ‘Follow Me’“ (v. 43). Like the other three apostles, Philip apparently had also gone to the Jordan to hear John the Baptist. But while they had sought out Jesus at the direction of the Baptist, the Lord found Philip. This is the first time Jesus initiated contact with one whom He called to be an apostle. That is not to say of course, that Jesus did not sovereignly choose and call the rest of them. “You did not choose Me,” He told the Twelve, “but I chose you, and appointed you” (John 15:16; cf. 6:70). The unregenerate, being “dead in [their] trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1), alienated from God and hostile to Him (Col. 1:21), blinded (2 Cor. 4:4) and held captive (2 Tim. 2:26) by Satan, enslaved to sin (John 8:34), and unable to understand spiritual truth (1 Cor. 2:14), cannot seek God on their own initiative. Therefore as Jesus declared, “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44), and, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (v.65).That God was drawing Philip to seek Jesus is evident from his reaction: he immediately went and told Nathanael that he had found the Messiah (see the discussion of John 1:45 below).
Such a bold, impulsive reaction makes it clear that God wasworking in Philip’s heart. To instantly, unhesitatingly commit himself to Christ, with no hint of doubt or disbelief, was completely out of character for Philip, as his role in the feeding of the five thousand demonstrates. Seeing the huge crowd, which would have included thousands of women and children in addition to the five thousand men (Matt. 14:21), Jesus “said to Philip, ‘Where are we to buy bread, so that these may eat?’“ (John 6:5).That the Lord asked Philip that question suggests that he may have been the apostolic administrator, the one in charge of logistics such as arranging meals and lodging. Jesus, of course, was not trying to come up with a plan, “for He Himself knew what He was intending to do” (v.6). Instead, “He was saying [this] to test” Philip, to reveal to him the weakness of his faith. True to form, he responded in unbelief. In typical bean counter fashion Philip, anticipating the difficulty of finding food for such a large crowd, had apparently been mentally estimating its size. By the time the Lord spoke to him, he had crunched the numbers and concluded that the situation was hopeless; hence his reply” Two hundred denarii [about eight months’ wages for a common laborer] worth of bread is not sufficient for them, for everyone to receive a little” (v. 7). Too bogged down in arithmetic to be adventurous, Philip failed one of the key tests of leadership. Instead of having a sense of the possible, he had a sense of the impossible. His focus on facts and figures stifled his faith. Andrew, on the other hand, brought a boy with a small lunch to Jesus, and his faith was honored when Jesus miraculously used that meager resource to feed the crowd (see the discussion of this incident in chapter 4 of this volume).
An incident recorded in John 12 provides another example of Philip’s analytical and overly cautious personality Verse 20 introduces “some Greeks among those who were going up to worship at the feast.” These were God-fearing Gentiles (cf. Acts 10:22; 17:4, 17), maybe even full-fledged converts to Judaism, who had come to Jerusalem for Passover. In the aftermath of the triumphal entry, they sought an audience with Jesus. Why they approached Philip (v. 21) is not clear, but John’s note that Philip “was from Bethsaida of Galilee” suggests that may have been the reason. Bethsaida was near the Gentile region known as the Decapolis (Matt. 4:25; Mark 5:20; 7:31), and they may have been from that region. Further, since he was a Galilean Philip likely spoke Greek.
Their simple request to Philip, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus” (v. 21) caught him completely off guard. He was a “by the book” person, and there was no precedent for introducing Gentiles to Jesus; it was not in the manual. In fact, two of Jesus’ previous statements argued against it, at least in Philip’s mind. When He sent the Twelve out to preach the gospel Jesus had instructed them, “Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of thehouse of Israel” (Matt. 10:5–6). And Philip had also heard the Lord say to a Canaanite woman, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24).That was enough to make him hesitant to bring these Gentiles to Jesus.
But in his narrow focus on methods and procedures, Philip missed the point. The Lord’s statements were not intended to prohibit Gentiles from coming to Him, but merely emphasized that the priority of His ministry was Israel (cf. Rom. 1:16). Philip forgot that Jesus had also said that “the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out” (John 6:37) and, “I have other sheep [Gentiles], which are not of this fold [Israel]; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd” (John 10:16). And He had commended the “great faith” of the Syrophoenician woman (Matt. 15:21–28).
Uncertain about how to proceed, “Philip came and told Andrew” (v.22).Unlike Philip, Andrew had no doubt about how to handle the situation. If people wanted to come to Jesus, he was going to bring them (see the discussion of Andrew in chapter 4 of this volume). Andrew’s reaction was swift and decisive; he “and Philip came and told Jesus” about the request (v.22).
The last glimpse of Philip in the New Testament (the Philip in Acts is Philip the evangelist, not the apostle Philip) comes in the upper room on the night of Christ’s betrayal and arrest. The Lord had just made the monumental statement, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6). He alone is the source of salvation (cf.Acts 4:12) and no one will go to heaven who does not by faith alone embrace Him alone as the Savior. Jesus followed that statement with an explicit declaration of His absolute deity and equality with the Father: “If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him” (v. 7).To know Jesus is to know the Father (cf. John 1:18), since the Persons of the Trinity are one in their very essence. Having known Jesus through the years of His earthly ministry, the disciples in effect already knew the Father as well.
At this point Philip made one of the most distressingly foolish and ignorant statements any of the apostles ever made. He said to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us” (v.8).Unbelievably Philip, who had so eagerly embraced Christ at the beginning, missed the point. He failed to grasp not only what Jesus had just said, but also all the teaching he had heard and the miracles he had observed over the years of Christ’s ministry. His skepticism, lack of faith, and inability to understand the significance of what he had seen and heard was heartbreaking.
Jesus rebuked Philip for his disappointing statement by demanding, “Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know Me, Philip?” The Lord then reiterated plainly the truth that He had taughtthe apostles in verse 7: “He who has seen Me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?” (v. 9). He then reprimanded Philip for failing to grasp that reality, despite what he had seen and heard (v. 10), and challenged him to believe; to take His faith in Jesus as the Messiah to its logical conclusion (v 11). The evidence Philip had seen pointed conclusively to one inescapable conclusion—Jesus was God incarnate, one in essence with the Father.
There is little reliable information about Philip’s later life and ministry The early Christian writers had a tendency to confuse him with Philip the evangelist (Acts 6:5; 8:26–40; 21:8). The fourth-century church historian Eusebius, for example, wrote of a Philip who lived in the city of Hierapolis in Asia Minor with his virgin daughters. But whether this was the apostle Philip or Philip the evangelist is unclear. According to the apocryphal Acts of Philip, the apostle Philip preached in Phrygia, Greece, and Syria before being martyred in Hierapolis in Asia Minor. The Acts of Philip, however, is not considered a reliable historical source.
It is perhaps to be expected that such a quiet, unassuming, behind the scenes person’s history would be so obscure. That in no way, however, diminishes Philip’s importance. This skeptical, analytical, pessimistic man of limited ability, weak faith, and imperfect understanding was nonetheless one of the twelve most important people in the history of the world.
BARTHOLOMEW (NATHANAEL)
Bartholomew (6:14f)
Philip’s close companion Bartholomew appears by that name in all four New Testament lists of the Twelve, but the apostle John calls him Nathanael. Both names refer to the same individual. Bartholomew means “son of Tolmai” in Hebrew; thus, his full name was Nathanael, son of Tolmai. In the lists in the Synoptic Gospels, his name immediately follows Philip’s, indicating the close relationship between the two. In fact, it was Philip who introduced Nathanael to the Savior.
The New Testament records even less information about Bartholomew than Philip. His only recorded appearance, apart from the lists of the apostles, is in John’s account of his call by Christ (John 1:45–51). That encounter reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of Nathanael’s personality
After the Lord called Philip (v. 43), he immediately “found Nathanael and said to him, ‘We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph’“(v. 45). His use of the plural pronoun “we” indicates that Philip already considered himself one of Jesus’ followers. His description of Him as the one of whom Moses and the Prophets wrote (i.e., the Messiah) indicates that Philip knew that Nathanael was a student of the Old Testament; a seeker after divine truth. It may be that Philip and Nathanael had spent hours together poring over the Scriptures. Perhaps they had even come to the Jordan together to hear John the Baptist.
But Nathanael’s reaction to his friend’s excited claim reveals a different aspect of his personality Responding with skepticism, if not outright scorn, he asked rhetorically, “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (v. 46). This was not a question based on the Old Testament’s prediction that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2); it was an expression of prejudice. The Galileans were despised by the Judeans as uncouth and unsophisticated. Nathanael was himself a Galilean, from the village of Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine (John 21:2). His remark indicates that Nazareth was despised even by other Galileans—hardly the place one would expect the Messiah to hail from. So insignificant was Nazareth that it is not even mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, or the writings of Josephus. It was inconceivable to Nathanael that the Messiah would come from such an obscure town.
Prejudice often blinds people to the truth. It was in one sense prejudice that kept the nation of Israel from accepting Jesus as the Messiah. Most of them shared Nathanael’s disdain for Nazareth, and rejected Jesus out of hand. Had they taken the time to investigate, they would have discovered that He was born in Bethlehem, just as the Old Testament predicted the Messiah would be. That most of the men in His inner circle were Galileans and that He Himself had not been trained in the rabbinic schools (John 7:15) also did not endear Jesus to the elitist religious establishment. Nathanael’s reaction reveals that he had not escaped the prejudice that was rampant in Jewish society
Unfazed by Nathanael’s cynical comment, Philip issued a simple challenge: “Come and see”(v46).To his credit, Nathanael’s seeking heart overcame his prejudice, and he went with Philip to meet Jesus. To his utter amazement, the Lord greeted him as “an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” (v. 47). Jesus’ words were a powerful commendation of Nathanael’s character. His characterization of him as “an Israelite indeed (alēthōs; ‘truly’ ‘actually,’ ‘in reality’)” means far more than that Nathanael was a physical descendant of Abraham. Abrahamic descent alone does not make one a true Jew. As the apostle Paul wrote, “They are not all Israel who are descended from Israel” (Rom.9:6), since” he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is thatwhich is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter” (Rom.2:28–29). Jesus identified Nathanael as one of the believing remnant, who worshiped the true and living God. Simeon and Anna were also examples of such (Luke 2:25–38).
Surprised that this man whom he had never met would greet him that way Nathanael asked incredulously “How do You know me?” (v. 48). How could Jesus know what was in his heart? The Lord’s answer, which revealed His omniscience, shocked Nathanael.”Before Philip called you,” He replied, “when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” But there is more to Jesus’ response than merely His supernatural knowledge of Nathanael’s location; He also knew the state of Nathanael’s heart (cf. John 2:24–25). To escape the noise and, in hot weather, the stuffy heat of their houses, people often sought solitude under the shade of a fig tree. That was where Nathanael went to study, pray, and think.
The Lord’s knowledge of Nathanael’s heart removed all his doubts about Him and he exclaimed, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel” (v. 49). Nathanael affirmed his belief in Christ’s deity as the “Son of God” (cf. Ps. 2:12) and that he was the Messiah, the “King of Israel” (cf. Zech. 9:9). Jesus in turn affirmed Nathanael’s faith “and said to him, ‘Because I said to you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?’“ (v 50). The Lord’s reply should probably be taken as a statement, not a question. His omniscient knowledge of Nathanael’s heart had convinced Nathanael of Jesus’ identity, but far more was to follow. “You will see greater things than these,” Jesus promised, “You will see the heavens opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (v. 51). The reference here is to Jacob’s dream in which he saw a ladder descending from heaven (Gen. 28:12). Jesus is in reality what that ladder symbolized, the link between heaven and earth and thus the revealer of divine truth to mankind (cf.John 1:14, 17; 3:13; 6:33; 1 Tim.2:5).
As is the case with his close companion Philip, little is known about Nathanael’s life and ministry after Christ’s resurrection and ascension. According to some accounts, he ministered in India. Other traditions place his ministry in Persia, Egypt, Armenia, and Asia Minor. Nor is there any agreement about how he died. Some accounts claim that Nathanael was martyred in Armenia, but those accounts differ over the manner of his death. Some say he was beheaded, others that he was skinned alive and then crucified (thus some works of art portray him holding his skin in his hands).
What is clear is that Nathanael remained faithful to the Lord Jesus Christ to the end, as he had been in the beginning. His life and ministry are a testimony to God’s ability to use common, insignificant people to His glory.