John 6:42

Joh 6:42. Οἴδαμεν) we are personally acquainted with [novimus], or rather, we know about [scimus]. Joseph was dead; but the remembrance of him remained.—πῶς, how) So Joh 6:52, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”—οὖν, then) On this very account they ought to have thought, that there was in Jesus something higher [than what outwardly appeared].

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(42) Is not this Jesus?—Here is something definite. He has spoken of being the Bread of Life, and of the Bread from Heaven. Putting together Joh_6:33; Joh_6:35; Joh_6:38, they in effect quote His words. But His natural descent and birth was in its outer facts well known, though all its mysteries were still stored in the mother’s heart, and waiting for the human life’s completion before they should be revealed. “Jesus Bar-Joseph” would be the name by which He was commonly called; Joseph and Mary had been known, probably, to many in the crowd; attention had now for more than a year been fixed on Him; and the genealogies would have been searched and local inquiries made. All these indications point to an ordinary life in a Galilean village. It is human, and therefore they think it cannot be divine. They can conceive a coming in the clouds of heaven: that would be a miracle and tell of God; but the birth of a child is no miracle! the existence of life itself—and such an existence, and such a life—is no sign! All this they cannot read. “How does He then say, I am come down from heaven?” (Comp. Joh_6:38 and Note on Joh_7:27.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

42. Is not this] Or, Is not this fellow; the expression is contemptuous.

whose father and mother we know] ‘We know all about His parentage; there is nothing supernatural or mysterious about His origin.’ Nothing can be inferred from this as to Joseph’s being alive at this time: the probability is that he was not, as he nowhere appears in the Gospel narrative; but this cannot be proved.

how is it then, &c.] Better, How doth He now say, I am come down.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jesus therefore answered and said unto them,.... Either overhearing what they said, or knowing, as God, their secret murmurs, and private cavils among themselves, thus addressed them,

murmur not among yourselves: meaning neither about his descent from heaven, nor about coming to him, and believing in him; for it follows,

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

Ver. 42. The son of Joseph] Who was Christi pater putativus, politicus, secudum dici, non secundum esse.

How is it then] Wretched men dare reprehend what they do not comprehend.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

For Capernaum, where our Saviour now was, was not far from Nazareth, where he had been educated, and lived near thirty years with Joseph his reputed father. Understanding therefore nothing of our Saviour’s miraculous conception by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin, they were much offended at his discourse of his coming down from heaven.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

42. Whose father and mother we know—These Jews therefore were familiar with Nazareth. Their terms are not now, as before, Rabbi and Lord. They have discarded from their memory the miraculous feeding, and so, doubtless, they carefully forget the Davidic descent of his parents, and all reference to his miraculous birth. They scout the idea of his having come down from heaven.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They were saying (elegon) the one to the other, murmuring in critical and angry mood, and not necessarily in his hearing; for he did not reply to their express assertion, and proceeded rather to enlarge and reiterate the great theme which he had already deduced in the hearing of his disciples. Weiss (vol. 3:6) thinks that John has here introduced an amplification which belongs to a totally different connection. Is not this Jesus, the Son of Joseph . (cf. Joh_1:46 Luk_4:22) We cannot argue from this passage whether Joseph was living still or had died. The murmuring is explicable on either hypothesis. The traditionary impression is that "Joseph" had fallen asleep. Either hypothesis is compatible with the languagewhose father and mother we know? They may have merely meant "whose reputed parentage is well understood," without implying that either one or other no longer lived. The fact of his parentage was admitted. This is an apparent point blank contradiction to the descent of his humanity from heaven. The supposition of the truth of the immaculate and supernatural birth of Jesus is perfectly compatible with the ignorance of the "Jews" about it. This deep mystery of love could not be made matter of public discourse, nor do our narratives suggest that the fact itself was promulgated until after the Resurrection. Whatever was apprehended by the sacred society of the hill country of Judaea, or laid up in the breasts of Joseph and Mary and of the few who pondered these strange things in their holy circle at Nazareth, we know not. The synoptic narratives, though they assert the mystery, do not give the smallest indication that it was ever referred to. or made an article of faith, by Jesus himself The difficulty that besets this passage is rather the silence of John, both here and elsewhere, concerning the manner of the Lord"s birth. He, who knew the mother of Jesus, and must have been acquainted with the language of Matthew and Luke, says nothing in vindication of the words of the Lord. Here was an opportunity for putting the "Jews" in the wrong, by endorsing the synoptic account which he did not embrace. We have already seen (cf. notes, Joh_1:14 Joh_3:1-6) that the underlying presupposition of the miraculous birth is the best explanation of his own words. Still his silence is remarkable. It is best accounted for by the fact that he was evermore looking to the moral, spiritual significance of all the miracles he records, as well as of those to which he vaguely refers. He is content with the words of Jesus. They are the surest explanation of the synoptic narrative. The Jews, on the basis of their general knowledge, are struck with consternation. How (now) therefore doth he say, I have come down out of heaven? This was not an irrational nor a malignant criticism. This question must have been asked by those who heard for the first time the stupendous claim. It would not seem that these interrogations were put in the heating of our Lord. His "answer" goes back to the "question" as it shaped itself in the hearts of the disciples, and involves some of the deepest truths which he had previously communicated to Nicodemus. He demands and must have a new humanity, a regenerated audience, subjects for his kingdom who are born anew or from above. He who came down from heaven insists that his true disciples must become what he is heaven born, must have a life out of heaven. They must be "of God," they must "hear" and "learn of the Father," must be drawn by Divine hands, if they would or should come to him. No lip-homage, no fickle desire for the Messianic kingdom, would satisfy him.

The Father draws the soul to Christ.

We have to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to God, first for giving and sending his Son to be our Saviour, and then for guiding us unto his Son, in order that in fellowship with him we may experience the blessings of salvation. For in these two ways does the Father furnish us with a complete display of his love; in these two ways does he completely secure our highest good.

I THE DRAWING OF THE SOUL BY THE FATHER.

1. The soul needs to be divinely drawn. And this because:

(1) By reason of sin it is estranged from God, is far from God, is even at enmity with God.

(2) There are other attractions, very powerful, and such as men are wont to yield to, which draw man"s nature in an opposite direction. "The world, the flesh, and the devil" have great power; and in the case of very many exert that power efficaciously to keep the soul from God, and even to increase the distance by which it is so separated.

2. The instrumentalities, or spiritual forces, by which the Father draws human souls to Christ.

(1) The presentation of truth adapted to man"s intelligence. The next verse brings this agency before us in explicit statement: "They shall be all taught of God.

(2) The utterance of moral authority addressing the conscience. Passion and interest may draw men from Christ; duty, with a mighty imperative, bids them approach their Lord and Saviour.

(3) Love appeals to the heart of man with mystic power. "The moon may draw the sea; The cloud may stoop from heaven, and take the shape, With fold to fold, of mountain or of cape.

The attraction of Christ"s character and life, of his gracious language, and above all of his sacrifice upon the cross, is the mightiest moral force the world has ever felt. "I," said he, "if I am lifted up, will draw all men unto myself." Thus in many ways, adapted by his own wisdom to the nature and circumstances of men, is the Father drawing men unto Christ.

3. The manner in which the Father draws the soul unto himself.

(1) This attraction is not of a physical, mechanical, forcible kind. Such compulsion would be out of all character, would not harmonize with man"s moral freedom. And, indeed, it would not be the drawing of the soul.

(2) It is a moral, spiritual attraction, in accordance with the nature both of him who draws and of those who are drawn. The Holy Spirit of God is the power to whom we owe the action of those moral constraints which are the chief and most beneficent factors in the moral life of mankind.

(3) Mighty though this drawing be, it is for the most part gentle and gradual. Its influence is not always at once apparent; it becomes manifest with the growth of experience and the lapse of time. It is continuous, lasting in the case of many from childhood to old age.

(4) The power and efficacy of this agency is not to be disputed. The Father calls, and the child answers. The magnetism is exercised, and the soul flies to the attracting power. The light shines, and the eye turns towards the welcome ray.

II THE COMING OF THE SOUL TO CHRIST.

1. There is an indispensable condition without which no soul can come to Christ. Christ must first come to the soul. The gospel must be preached, and must be received, for it is the Divine call, which alone can authorize the approach of sinful man to the Holy One and Just.

2. The soul"s method in coming. It is easy enough to understand how when Jesus was on earth men came to him; they came actually, bodily, locally. Yet the principle of approach is ever the same; for our Lord said indifferently," Come unto me," and Believe on me." The coming of the bodily form was useless apart from spiritual approach, sympathy, and trust. As it is the soul which the Father draws, so it is the soul which, being drawn, finds itself near the Saviour and in fellowship with him.

3. The soul"s purpose in coming. It is impelled by conscious need of the Redeemer, as the Prophet, the Priest, the King, divinely appointed. It hopes to find in him that fall satisfaction which, sought elsewhere, is sought in vain.

4. The soul"s experience in coming.

(1) There is welcome and acceptance; for he who comes is never, in any wise, cast out.

(2) There is a perfect response to the desire and need. The hungry is fed, the thirsty finds the water of life, the weary meets with rest, and the man who longs to serve has revealed to him the law and rule of consecration.

(3) There is the eternal abiding; for the soul that comes to Jesus neither leaves him, nor is left by him.

5. The soul"s obligation in coming.

(1) Gratefully to acknowledge the infinite mercy by which this attractive influence has been exercised, and to which the fellowship with Christ is due.

(2) Diligently to act as the Father"s agent in bringing other souls to Jesus. We can trace the Divine power in the human agency which was employed to lead us to the Saviour. The same God can still use the same means to the same result. T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

42. οὗτος. Contemptuous; this fellow. ‘We know all about His parentage; there is nothing supernatural about His origin.’ Nothing can be inferred from this as to Joseph’s being still alive (see on Joh 2:1). Ἡμεῖς is emphatic; ‘we know it for ourselves.’ This is in favour of the speakers being of Galilee rather than from Jerusalem.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

42.] They rightly supposed that this καταβῆναι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ must imply some method of coming into the world diverse from ordinary generation. Meyer gathers from the οἴδαμεν, that our Lord’s reputed father was then still alive. But surely the verb will bear the sense of knowing as matter of fact who they were, and need not be confined to personal knowledge.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

42. καὶ ἔλεγον κτλ., “And they were saying, Is not this person (οὗτος, perhaps with a slight suggestion of disparagement, as at v. 52, 7:15) Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?” It is plain (see on v. 41) that Jn. conceives of the speakers as natives of Galilee, and acquainted with the household at Nazareth. The Synoptists (Mar 6:3, Mat 13:55, Luk 4:22) mention a similar criticism (the words in Lk. are οὐχὶ υἱός ἐστιν Ἰωσὴφ οὗτος; ) as having been passed on Jesus in the synagogue at Nazareth at an earlier point in His ministry. The criticism was probably made more than once, and it is natural in the context where Jn. places it. But it is possible that he has taken the episode out of its historical setting; as in 4:44 (where see note) he has introduced the proverb about a prophet being without honour in his own country, which the Synoptists place in sequence to the criticism, “Is not this the son of Mary? Is not this the son of Joseph?”

As at 1:45 (where see note), Jn. does not stay to comment on the mistake which is involved in the question, “Is not this Joseph’s son?” It is unnecessary for him to explain to Christian readers that this was not so. There is nothing in the form of the question to suggest that Joseph was alive, and the probability is that he had died before the public ministry of Jesus began (see on 2:1).

πῶς νῦν λέγει κτλ. For νῦν, the rec. text (with אADLΓΔN) has οὖν, but νῦν is read by BCTWΘ, and has a special force, “How does he say now that, etc.,” sc. to us who have known him from a child. οὗτος is inserted again after λέγει by אAΓΔ, but is redundant. ὅτι, recitantis, the words following being a citation.

ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβέβηκα, the order of the words being changed, ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ being placed first for emphasis. This was the incredible thing, that it was from heaven He claimed to have come down.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

We know. Not implying necessarily that Joseph was still alive, but merely the fact that Joseph was recognized as the father of Jesus.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.