One of the charges politicians delight to level against each other when a proposed course of action is suddenly abandoned is that of performing a policy U-turn. Opponents seize on this as evidence of political weakness and/or incompetence. Sometimes, however, a U-turn is the right and necessary response to compelling new insight.

Nathanael is presented here as a man well versed in the Scriptures. Seen as places of security and peace (eg Micah 4:4, Zechariah 3:10), rabbinic writing suggests it was common for Jewish men to sit under the shade of fig trees (v 48) for their scriptural meditation and debates. Philip’s words (v 45) pick up on Nathanael’s thinking (v 46). His conviction that Israel’s Messiah could not possibly come from Nazareth (v 46) is founded on his reading of the Law. That reading must be radically revised, however, when he encounters Jesus, who reads him incisively and who knows his position (vs 47,48). Nathanael’s U-turn is confirmed with his declaration that Jesus is indeed the ‘king of Israel’ (v 49).

It is to Nathanael’s credit that he revises his reading of the written word in response to his encounter with the Word made flesh. His example reminds us that we should come to the Bible with humility, asking not so much, ‘What do I make of this word?’ but rather, ‘What does the living Word revealed here make of me?’