Why did God Take Zachariah's Voice?

Question

In Luke 1, Gabriel tells the aged priest Zachariah that he’s going to have a son. But Zachariah wants proof.

18 Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years.”

As a result, God takes Zachariah's voice.

19 The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. 20 And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time.”

It's evident from the text that Zachariah is punished because he "did not believe." But why did God take Zachariah's voice? Why not blindness? Or a limp? What correlation, if any, does this punishment have with Zachariah's act of questioning Gabriel's message?

Answer 1

Many commentators reflect on the muteness was both a sign and punishment. For example, R.H. Stein (1992) comments as follows.

1:20 You will be silent.
Zechariah graciously was given a sign as an aid to faith even though the sign also was a rebuke for lack of faith. The sign was a punitive miracle but contained the promise “until the day this happens.” Muteness is a sign in Ezek 3:26; 24:27 and a judgment in 2 Macc 3:29.

However, the specific purpose of the muteness appears to have been to vacate Zechariah's ability to serve in the Temple until the child was born. That is, the punishment was to disqualify Zechariah from Temple ministry as a Levite. Lightfoot (2010) comments as follows.

Ver. 18: Ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι πρεσβύτης· For I am an old man.] If so old a man, why then was he not sequestered from the service of the Temple by the law of superannuation? Numb. 4:3; 8:24, 25. Hear what the Rabbins say in this case:
“There is something that is lawful in the priests, that is unlawful in the Levites: and there is something lawful in the Levites, that is unlawful in the priests. The Rabbins deliver; the priests upon any blemish are unfit; as for their years they are not unfit; the Levites for their years may be unfit, but by reason of blemish are not. From that which is said, that at the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting, we learn that years may make the Levites unfit. Perhaps the priests also are made unfit through years: and indeed, does it not seem in equity, that if the Levites, whom a blemish doth not make unfit, should yet be made unfit by superannuation, should not much more the priests be made unfit by superannuation, when even a spot or blemish will make them unfit? But the text saith, This is the law of the Levites; not, This is the law of the priests. The Rabbins deliver: What time a priest comes to maturity, till he grow old, he is fit to minister; and yet a spot or blemish makes him unfit. The Levite from his thirtieth to his fiftieth year is fit for service; but being superannuated, he becomes unfit. How must this be understood concerning the Levites? To wit, for that time wherein the ark was in the wilderness: but at Shiloh and in the Temple they were not rendered unfit, unless through the defect of their voice (See Bemidbar Rab. 222.3). (emphasis added)

In other words, Zechariah was unable to give the required public benediction and blessing to the people as part of the Temple service (cf. Num 6:22-27), and therefore Zechariah was disqualified from such service with such physiological handicaps (cf. Lev 21:9-14 and Lev 22:3-9). In fact, the text appears to show that Zechariah was also deaf, since others had to "sign" words to him (Luke 1:62). The Babylonian Talmud also has numerous references to the incapacitation of deaf-mutes in serving and participating in the Synagogue.

Finally, when Zechariah was able to talk (at the birth of his son John), he had "prophesied" that his son John was be a prophet. The implication here is that one who prophesies (that is, one who is not incapacitated by "muteness"--read: lack of belief in the Words of God) is therefore to be the faithful servant of the Lord.

---

References:

Lightfoot, J. (2010). A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Matthew-1 Corinthians: Luke-John (Vol. 3.) Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 22-23.

Stein, R. H. (1992). Luke (Vol. 24). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 77.

Answer 2

According to the Luke-Acts, the sign of the Spirit is an open mouth in witness and praise. Jesus says in Acts 1:8,

But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses…

And this is what we find in Luke and Acts. Those who are filled or receive or have the Holy Spirit come upon them open their mouths in witness and or praise.

• Elizabeth exclaims in a loud voice. (Luke 1:42-43)
• Zachariah prophecies. (Luke 1:67-79)
• The 120 “speak in other tongues.” (Acts 2:4)
• Peter testifies (Acts 4:8)
• The believers “speak the word of God boldly.” (Acts 4:31)
• Cornelius and his household speak in tongues (Acts 10:44-46)
• Paul curses Elymas (Acts 13:9)
• The Ephesian disciples speak in tongues and prophesy (Acts 19:6)

The open mouth is precisely why being filled with the Holy Spirit is often compared to being drunk. For instance, When the crowds heard the disciples speaking in tongues on the day of Pentecost they thought they were drunk. (Acts 2:13-15). And Instead of getting drunk, Paul instructs the Ephesians to be “filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18) A person who is drunk typically loses all inhebition to speak or even sing. Think Karaoke bar. But even before Karaoke, bars have always been a place of speaking and singing. Note how Paul follows this call to be “filled with the Spirit.”

Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Ephesians 5:19-20).

To speak and to sing praise to the Lord is to allow the Spirit to move in and through you.

If the open mouth is the sign of the Holy Spirit then we can conclude that the absence of the Holy Spirit is a closed mouth. When Zachariah seeks verification, he's punished by the closed mouth. When Mary seeks information, her mouth is opened and she sings a song almost ten verse long (1:46-55). From the intentional parallels in these accounts we can see that Zachariah was meant to sing. Point after point, Luke takes great pains to reveal an important comparison and contrast in these two accounts.

Situation: Like Zachariah and Elizabeth, Mary is unable to have children. They are old. She is a virgin (compare 1:5-10, 26-27)

Message: Like Zachariah, the angel comes to Mary with the miraculous good news. (compare 1:11-17, 28-33), Don’t be afraid (1:13, 30), You will have a son (1:13, 31), You will name him… (1:13, 31) He will be great… (1:14-17, 32-33))

Question: Like Zachariah, she asks “How” – though it’s a very different sort of question then the one Zachariah asks. (compare 1:18, 34)

Response: Like Zachariah, she gets an answer. (compare 1:19-20, 35-38)

Elizabeth Reaction: And Like Zachariah, she journey’s to Zachariah’s home where Elizabeth proclaims the glory of what God has done. (compare 1:21-25, 39-45)

But then the pattern is broken in Mary's song (1:46-55)! See how it's broken.

Zachariah: Situation – Message – Question – Response – Reaction – (****)

Mary: Situation – Message – Question – Response – Reaction – SONG!

Zachariah is silenced. His song is clearly missing. Given Mary's song we see that he should have sang a song after Elizabeth response. But he doesn’t. He can’t. Instead he sits silently watching and listening to this young girl sing a song that he himself is unable sing.

Why is Mary’s mouth opened when Zachariah’s is shut?

It’s comes down to the very different responses they have to the good news.

Zachariah doubts the message and seeks for verification. “How shall I know this?”

Mary believes and seeks for information. “How will this be?”

For Luke, these two stories aren’t just about the birth of John and Jesus. It’s the very message of Luke’s Gospel and Acts. Be careful how you receive the Good News – the Gospel, Luke warns. To those who believe their mouths will be opened, but the mouths of the those who disbelieve will be shut.

The good news is that its not over for Zachariah. He has a second chance. Though it comes late, his mouth is opened when he humbles himself and submits to the good news. When he names his son John, as the Angel instructed, Zachariah, like Mary before, is “filled with the Holy Spirit” and at last sings His song (1:67-79).

Answer 3

I don't think anyone can be 100% certain, to be honest. But I would say the two most probable explanations are these:

#1: Because Zechariah was old and his speech was the only significant sense.

Zechariah was already an old man, and probably therein had some health issues. For example, it wouldn't make sense to strike him deaf because if he wasn't already deaf, he was probably near to it. This is evidenced because he came out of the Temple signing, but later, in verse 62, they are signing to him:

So they made signs to [him] inquiring what he wanted to name his son

If he was only mute, they could have just spoken to him and he would have been able to respond.

This same thought process could go for most other physical ailments. I don't think it would surprise anyone that a man described as "very old" [verse 7] had some issues with walking. As such, one possible interpretation is that the ability to speak was the only real physical ailment which could be levied upon him.

#2: To silence disbelief, and thereby testify of the truth.

Personally, I think this makes the most sense. Mathew Henry very simply notes, "His unbelief was silenced". Leaving the Temple, he could not brag about the vision, nor question the prophecy. In fact, the only time he is able to speak is after he writes "his name is John", testifying of his belief and submitting himself to the truth. It's likely he had to said this earlier, because they were "astonished" at the time of birth when he named the child John. If he had testified of the vision and said the unborn child's name should be John, then they would not have been surprised after the child had been born. It was the disbelief which had been silenced.

This is similar with Paul. He could not "see" (metaphorically) the truth, so God blinds him until he sees the truth. Also with Nebuchadnezzar - he goes mad until he gives praise to God. And thus with Zechariah, he would not testify of the truth, so he was silenced until he would testify of the truth - and at when he does, his speech is restored to him.

So, therefore, we conclude that the punishment given is to stop the disbelief, and is lifted when the disbelief has ended. This has the added benefit of testifying to the truth, because immediately after saying "his name is John" he is able to speak - that direct correlation speaks to the validity of the vision with Gabriel.

Answer 4

The angel who visited Zacharias said:

¹³But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
_{Luke 1:13 (KJV)}

So, Zacharias was instructed to name the child, John.

On the eighth day, when the child was to be named:

⁵⁹... they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. ⁶⁰And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
⁶¹And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name. ⁶²And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
⁶³And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John.
And they marveled all. ⁶⁴And his mouth was opened immediately, and his tongue loosed, and he spake, and praised God.
_{Luke 1:59-64 (KJV)}

Because of his unbelief, if Zacharias had been left to his natural inclination it is highly likely that he would have bowed to tradition and family pressure, naming his son Zacharias, despite his wife reminding him of the angel's instruction to call the child, John.

Taking Zacharias' voice was the necessary cost of ensuring that the angel's instructions would be followed, and that all the things said by the angel about the child would be believed.

⁶⁵And fear came on all that dwelt round about them: and all these sayings were noised abroad throughout all the hill country of Judea. ⁶⁶And all they that heard them laid them up in their hearts, saying, What manner of child shall this be!
And the hand of the Lord was with him.
_{Luke 1:65-66 (KJV)}

Answer 5

I had had the same question and didn't know the answer. And then I prayed and got an answer in my mind, to this question.

Because God wants us to profit all, so I have to say it here.

It is simple. God's words answers themselves.

Zecharias prophesied by the sing that means he is a prophet. In the old testament, God is strict on His prophets, as it is written:

Ezekiel 14:9(NKJV), “And if the prophet is induced to speak anything, I the LORD have induced that prophet, and I will stretch out My hand against him and destroy him from among My people Israel.

And he is the father of John the baptist that God does not want him to be destroyed. The person's speech is going to the reflection of his mind, the disbelief, in this case, the mind of Zecharias.

Thus, God muted Zecharaias, protecting him. Because God cannot contradict himself.

Therefore when Zecharaias truly believed what God said to him, his mouth got to be opened finally. And more importantly, God knew all of these before He revealed the prophesy to Zecharaias and He respects our freewill as always!

Behold! Bless God with all your hearts!

Answer 6

As to why the voice and not another ailment, it seems that God directly is the only one who makes mute or deaf or speaking or hearing. In Exodus 4:11 "The Lord said to him, “Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord?" Other than Balaam's donkey, I cannot recall any other time in the Old Testament that one that was speaking was made to speak. And that is arguably directly from God, or the angel of God, as well. Zechariah being mute could be a clear message to the others around him that God is at work here.

Answer 7

My guess:

Zachariah was a priest. As a priest you’re gonna have to do a lot of talking, so him being silent makes the punishment worse because he cannot do his job. It shows us how serious God is about faith

Or

God may have waited till after John’s birth because it means that God’s promise has come to pass. Zachariah’s proof of God’s faithfulness will come after he sees the promise being fulfilled through John. So Zachariah will develop more faith and will be able to tell the others the goodness of God. After all, he is a priest, and priest should set examples for God’s people. Him not having faith is an example we should not follow so taking away his voice means he cannot influence God’s people with his doubt