And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he said, I came down from heaven?
Is not.
John 7:27 Howbeit we know this man whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
Matthew 13:55,56 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? …
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
“Is this not Jesus,
The name "Jesus" was common in first-century Judea, derived from the Hebrew name Yeshua, meaning "Yahweh is salvation." The familiarity of His name underscores the ordinariness of His human appearance, which contrasts with His divine nature.
the son of Joseph,
Joseph, a carpenter from Nazareth, was Jesus' legal father, though not His biological one. This reference highlights the people's perception of Jesus as merely a human being with a known earthly lineage, ignoring the miraculous nature of His birth as described in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-38.
whose father and mother we know?
This statement reflects the community's familiarity with Jesus' family, emphasizing their inability to see beyond His human origins. It also points to the cultural importance of family lineage and reputation in Jewish society, which often determined one's social standing and credibility.
How then can He say,
The question reveals the crowd's struggle to reconcile Jesus' claims with their understanding of His background. It highlights a recurring theme in the Gospels: the tension between human perception and divine revelation.
‘I have come down from heaven?’”
This claim of heavenly origin is central to Jesus' identity as the Son of God. It echoes Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah's divine nature, such as Isaiah 9:6 and Micah 5:2. The statement also prefigures Jesus' later teachings about His pre-existence and mission, as seen in John 8:58 and John 17:5. The crowd's inability to accept this claim underscores the spiritual blindness that Jesus often encountered.
• The immediate context shows “the Jews” grumbling (John 6:41). Their questioning tone reveals hearts already inclined to doubt rather than to seek.
• Similar scenes of skeptical murmuring appear in Exodus 16:2–3, reminding us how unbelief often echoes across generations.
• They acknowledge the name everyone knew: Jesus—“the Savior” announced in Matthew 1:21.
• Yet, as in Luke 4:22, familiarity with His upbringing blinds them to His true identity. Knowing His name is not the same as knowing Him.
• They assume a purely natural lineage, overlooking the miraculous conception revealed in Matthew 1:18–25 and Luke 1:34–35.
• John 1:45 records Nathanael’s similar first impression, showing how common this assumption was.
• By clinging to Joseph as the ultimate explanation, they miss Isaiah 7:14’s promise of a virgin-born Immanuel.
• The crowd’s confidence in their limited knowledge echoes the proverb of Mark 6:3—“Isn’t this the carpenter?”
• John 7:27 shows the same attitude: “We know where this man is from.” Earthly familiarity breeds spiritual blindness (John 4:44).
• Their question is not sincere inquiry but a challenge, like Nicodemus’s initial confusion in John 3:9–12.
• 1 Corinthians 2:14 reminds us that the natural mind resists truths that demand spiritual revelation.
• Jesus had just declared, “For I have come down from heaven” (John 6:38), linking His origin to His role as the true Bread of Life (John 6:51).
• His claim affirms pre-existence (John 1:1–14; Philippians 2:6–7).
• Accepting this statement is essential to genuine faith; rejecting it leaves one stuck at a merely human assessment of Christ.
John 6:42 captures the tension between earthly familiarity and heavenly revelation. The crowd knew Jesus’ hometown story but ignored the prophetic and eternal realities behind it. Their question exposes unbelief: they could not reconcile His visible humanity with His declared heavenly origin. The verse challenges every reader to move beyond surface knowledge of Jesus and to embrace the full truth Scripture presents—Jesus is both genuinely human and eternally divine, the One who “came down from heaven” to give life to the world.
(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 John 6:33; John 6:35; John 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. John 6:38 and Note on John 7:27.)Verse 42. - They were saying (ἔλεγον) - 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. John 1:46; Luke 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 language - whose 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, John 1:14; John 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.