Why did they make signs to Zechariah if he was not deaf?

[Alma]

The Bible says that Zechariah the father of John the Baptist, was silenced as a punishment for not believing what the angel told him:
“Since you did no believe my words…you will be silenced and have no power of speech until this has happened” (Lk 1, 20).

So we know he could not talk, and we suppose he could still hear.

But then we read that when it was time for him to give a name to his son, the ones that asked him “made signs” to him (Lk 1, 62).

Why is that? Did they think he was also deaf?, was he?

Alma

 

[Huiou_Theou]

An Excellent and refreshing question.
I don’t know – but there are three things which come to mind.

1. He was old and may have been hard of hearing before he became mute.
2. The power of speech does include discourse – and logically includes hearing / thinking in words (I’ll need to check the Greek to see exactly what it says – but not tonight.)
3. Luke may actively intend a pun; Zechariah asked for a “sign” and that caused him to be punished – here they make “signs” to Zechariah (tempting him?) that go against God’s command for the child’s name; The exact reason a “sign” is important eludes me – but it is something to meditate on before coming to a conclusion.

 

[GEddie]

The Bible says that Zechariah the father of John the Baptist, was silenced as a punishment for not believing what the angel told him:
“Since you did no believe my words…you will be silenced and have no power of speech until this has happened” (Lk 1, 20).

So we know he could not talk, and we suppose he could still hear.

But then we read that when it was time for him to give a name to his son, the ones that asked him “made signs” to him (Lk 1, 62).

Why is that? Did they think he was also deaf?, was he?

Alma

The Bible does not say.

But it is a common error when we do not know someone, if they have no voice, to assume they are deaf. Still, you’d think they knew him.

ICXC NIKA

 

[kmuestwin]

If they knew he was mute, their process of communication probably involved them mirroring the sings that Zechariah made in order to understand what he was saying.

 

[DaveBj]

I was curious about this for a long time. Finally I came to the conclusion that the most obvious answer is probably the right answer – the angel’s sign included deafness as well as the inability to speak, in spite of the fact that deafness is not specifically mentioned. Otherwise, Zechariah would have written, “I can still hear, you nitwits!”

 

[Rejoice_Always]

I was curious about this for a long time. Finally I came to the conclusion that the most obvious answer is probably the right answer – the angel’s sign included deafness as well as the inability to speak, in spite of the fact that deafness is not specifically mentioned. Otherwise, Zechariah would have written, “I can still hear, you nitwits!”

 

[LilyM]

I was curious about this for a long time. Finally I came to the conclusion that the most obvious answer is probably the right answer – the angel’s sign included deafness as well as the inability to speak, in spite of the fact that deafness is not specifically mentioned. Otherwise, Zechariah would have written, “I can still hear, you nitwits!”

Hmmm, perhaps they just tactfully glossed over that bit in the Gospels

 

[tabycat]

:

I was curious about this for a long time. Finally I came to the conclusion that the most obvious answer is probably the right answer – the angel’s sign included deafness as well as the inability to speak, in spite of the fact that deafness is not specifically mentioned. Otherwise, Zechariah would have written, “I can still hear, you nitwits!”

:bounce::bowdown:
There are some who think that if someone has a speech problem, then they also have a hearing problem.

 

[tabycat]

Hmmm, perhaps they just tactfully glossed over that bit in the Gospels

Maybe they were being tactful. Knowing me, I would not be very tactful on either side. :blush:

 

[patrick457]

The Bible does not say.

But it is a common error when we do not know someone, if they have no voice, to assume they are deaf. Still, you’d think they knew him.

ICXC NIKA

That’s what Joel B. Green (The Gospel of Luke) proposes.

The way the people put their question to Zechariah reminds us of the condition in which the narrative left him – “mute, unable to speak” (1:20). Muteness and deafness were interrelated in antiquity, so that these people communicate with Zechariah via hand motions. This recalls Zechariah’s affliction, but also reveals that Zechariah has not heard his wife’s choice of a name for their son. That he agrees with her, then, is itself cause for amazement; the people see behind this concordance divine machinations and respond accordingly. (10: On amazement as a characteristic response to the supernatural in Luke-Acts, see, e.g., 8:25; 9:43; 11:14.)

The same is noted in for LukeThe New American Commentary by Robert A. Stein:

1:62 Zechariah was both deaf and mute (cf. 1:22,64), so that they appealed to him by means of signs. He responded by means of writing (1:63). These two infirmities are often associated with each other (cf. Mark 7:32,37; 9:25).

Leon Morris (Luke: An Introduction and Commentary) also pretty much agrees:

It is curious that they made signs to [Zechariah]. In their excitement they forgot that the old prest could hear, or else Zechariah was deaf as well as dumb (the word kōphos which described his ailment in v. 22 can mean ‘deaf and dumb’). His response when they gave him a writing tablet (a board covered with wax, SB) was definite. He did not say, as had Elizabeth, that the child would be called John, but His name is John. In the Greek John comes first with emphasis, and we should not overlook the force of the present. The angel had already named the boy and Zechariah accepts his name as an accomplished fact.

 

[patrick457]

I was curious about this for a long time. Finally I came to the conclusion that the most obvious answer is probably the right answer – the angel’s sign included deafness as well as the inability to speak, in spite of the fact that deafness is not specifically mentioned. Otherwise, Zechariah would have written, “I can still hear, you nitwits!”

 

[Alma]

I was curious about this for a long time. Finally I came to the conclusion that the most obvious answer is probably the right answer – the angel’s sign included deafness as well as the inability to speak, in spite of the fact that deafness is not specifically mentioned. Otherwise, Zechariah would have written, “I can still hear, you nitwits!”