Philip has to be specific about who this Jesus is because there were lots of people called Yeshua at the time. So, Philip needs to differentiate who this person was. He’s the one from Nazareth, the one who is the son of Joseph. So, Philip is noting these details in terms of differentiation, but also the significance of these titles.
It seems that Nathanael was not aware of this, but Philip seems to know that there is significance to the fact that Jesus is from Nazareth. And if Philip did not know this, John’s highlighting of it seems to suggest that at least he knew it. Again, it’s this fulfilment of scripture.
Now, this is something that Matthew Henry brings out in his analysis of the word “Nazarene.” It’s linked to the word “Nazarite,” and although etymologically, the word “Nazarene” is being linked to the fact that he was a branch (because the word “branch” in Hebrew, “netzer,” is etymologically close to the name “Nazarene”), I agree with Matthew Henry, who also makes a link to the word “Nazarite.”
A Nazarite vow was one that individuals in the people of God could make, a vow of special dedication to God, either for life or for a specific period of time. They weren’t allowed to cut their hair or beard, they couldn’t drink alcohol (which would drain life from them), and they weren’t allowed to touch dead bodies because they were anathema to death. They were to be full of the life of the Holy Spirit.
It seems that Nazareth was a place full of people who made these Nazarite vows, and again, this is not something that many commentators would agree with, but this is a conviction I myself have. This is the significance of Jesus being from Nazareth. It makes sense of Nathanael’s comment, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Because if Nazareth was full of people who made these Nazarite vows—people who were oddballs or at least odd-looking, with long hair, long beards, didn’t drink, didn’t touch dead bodies—then it would have gained this reputation as a despised, odd place.
But even if we don’t accept that and Nazareth was simply a despised place, that still makes sense of Nathanael’s comment. But does Philip mentioning this significance—at least a significance for John in quoting Philip mentioning it—add to that? The fact that John makes a point of quoting Philip saying that Jesus is the son of Joseph and then we get on to more kingly stuff, which we’ll get to perhaps later. Joseph was the son of David; we see that at the beginning of Matthew’s gospel. He’s the king, and so this is all going on in Philip’s mind.
Either way, we know that the Holy Spirit reveals these things to us.
