Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 1:62
And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
62. made signs ] The discussion whether Zacharias was deaf as well as mute is a very unimportant one, but the narrative certainly seems to imply that he was.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 62. They made signs to his father] Who, it appears from this, was deaf as well as dumb; otherwise they might have asked him, and obtained his answer in this way.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
It was the parents place, the fathers especially, to give children their names. Zacharias was dumb as yet, they therefore made signs to him; he by writing declareth that his name was
John, that is, he was so named already by the angel, therefore there was to be no further dispute about it. The friends marvel at the consent of both the parents in the case, declining all the names of their kindred.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
62. made signsshowing he wasdeaf, as well as dumb.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And they made signs to his father,…. Who was deaf, as well as dumb; otherwise there would have been no occasion to have signs made to him: and so the word used, in Lu 1:20 signifies both deaf and dumb. These signs were made by hands or head; for such used to be made to a dumb man. According to the canon q, a dumb man nods, and “and is nodded”, or “beckoned to”: and which beckoning one of the commentators r says, is a sign which is expressed either by the hands or head. Such a method as these took with Zacharias, about the name of his son, is directed to in case of a father’s deafness, in relation to knowing who is his firstborn; s
“father that is dumb, they search or examine him in the way they search for divorces; if he makes signs, or writes, that this is his firstborn, lo! this takes the double portion.”
How he would have him called; by what name, Zacharias or John; and they were right in applying to him, to whom it most properly belonged, to give a name to his child.
q Misn. Gittin, c. 5. sect 7. r Bartenora in ib. s Maimon. Hitch. Nechalot, c. 2. sect. 15, & 4. 1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Made signs (). Imperfect tense, repeated action as usual when making signs. In 1:22 the verb used of Zacharias is .
What he would have him called ( ). Note article with the indirect question, accusative of general reference. The optative with is here because it was used in the direct question (cf. Ac 17:18), and is simply retained in the indirect.
What would he wish him to be called? (if he could speak), a conclusion of the fourth-class condition.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
They made signs [] . Imperfect tense. While the colloquy between Elizabeth and her friends was going on, they were consulting Zacharias by signs.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And they made signs to his father,” (enenuon de to patri autou) “Then they nodded (made signs) to his father,” to Zacharias who was dumb or had speech paralysis and who was the proper one to name the child.
2) “How he would have him called.” (to ti an theloi kaleisthai auto) “What he might wish (as first choice) that he might be called,” for a goodly name is 6f desirable choice, Pro 22:1; Ecc 7:1.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(62) They made signs to his father.It seems probablealmost, indeed, certainfrom this, that Zacharias was deprived of the power of hearing as well as speech, and had passed into the condition of one who was naturally a deaf mute.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
62. Made signs For the father, as we have already remarked, was deaf as well as dumb.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Luk 1:62 f. ] They conveyed by signs to him the question ( , see Krger, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 17; Khner, II. p. 138), how ( = , comp. Aesch. Ag. 1205) he perchance ( , see Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 386]) would wish that the child ( , see the critical remarks) should be named. The making signs does not presuppose deafness and dumbness (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Maldonatus, Lightfoot, Grotius, Wolf, and others, including Ewald), against which may be urged Luk 1:20 ; nor is it to be explained by the fact, that we are inclined to communicate by means of signs with dumb people as with deaf people (Bengel, Michaelis, Paulus, Olshausen, de Wette), which can only be arbitrarily applied to Zacharias, since he had only been dumb for a short time and people had previously been accustomed to speak with him. Probably it was only from the wish to spare the mother that the decision of the father, who had all along been listening to the discussion, was called for not aloud, but by signs.
] , Euthymius Zigabenus.
] probably a little tablet covered with wax. Tertullian, de idolol. 23 : “Zacharias loquitur in stylo, auditur in cera.”
] scripsit haec verba . Comp. 2Ki 10:6 ; 1Ma 8:31 ; 1Ma 11:57 . A Hebraism ( ). On the same usage in the Syriac, see Gesenius in Rosenmller’s Rep. I. p. 135. An example from Josephus is found in Kypke, I. p. 211; Krebs, p. 98. The return of speech does not occur till Luk 1:64 . Comp. Luk 1:20 ; Luk 1:13 .
. . ] Shortly and categorically, in the consciousness of what had been already divinely determined: . “Non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat,” Bengel.
.] because Zacharias agreed with Elizabeth in a name foreign to the family.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
Ver. 62. And they made signs to his father ] Who, therefore, seems to have been deaf (as well as dumb) because he had not hearkened to the angel’s speech, but gainsaid it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
62. ] The natural inference (see on Luk 1:22 ) from this verse is, that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb; nor do I think Kuinoel, De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Bengel, Bleek, and Bp. Wordsworth have succeeded in invalidating this inference. There could have been no reason for beckoning , had Zacharias been able to hear articulate words. Bengel’s reason, adopted by Bp. W., “commodius est muto innuentes videre quam loquentes audire,” is surely too far-fetched.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 1:62 . (here only in N. T.): they made signs, which seems to imply that Zechariah is supposed to be deaf as well as dumb. Various suggestions have been made to evade this conclusion; e.g. , that men are very apt to treat a dumb person as if he were also deaf (Bengel, De Wette, Godet); that they communicated by signs instead of by speech to spare the feelings of Elizabeth, whose judgment was being appealed from (Meyer); that a sign was all that was needed, Zechariah having heard all that was said (Bleek, J. Weiss, Hahn). before the clause following , viewed as a substantive, is very appropriate in a case where the question was not spoken but signalled. : the optative with , implies diverse possibilities; found in Lk.’s writings only in N. T.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
made signs. Imperf. Tense = were consulting him by signs; i.e. while the colloquy was going on,
would = wished to. Greek. thelo. App-102.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
62.] The natural inference (see on Luk 1:22) from this verse is, that Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb; nor do I think Kuinoel, De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Bengel, Bleek, and Bp. Wordsworth have succeeded in invalidating this inference. There could have been no reason for beckoning, had Zacharias been able to hear articulate words. Bengels reason, adopted by Bp. W., commodius est muto innuentes videre quam loquentes audire, is surely too far-fetched.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 1:62. , they made signs) To one dumb it is more convenient, that he should see persons making signs, than that he should hear them speaking, inasmuch as he is not able to reply to them by word of mouth. It is not probable that Zacharias was also deaf.-) The article is here demonstrative.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Luk 1:22
Reciprocal: Luk 1:20 – thou shalt
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
It is strange that the father had not been consulted in the first place, instead of waiting until they wanted him to decide a dispute. Made signs means they beckoned by a nod or something similar what they wanted him to do.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Luk 1:62. They made signs to his father. From this it would appear that he was deaf also. Meyer conjectures that they made signs in order to spare the mother, when they referred the case to her husband. But this is a pure assumption. Besides, the punishment inflicted on Zacharias was designed to give him time for silent reflectionan end far better secured, if he were deaf also.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Apparently Zechariah could not hear or speak. The visitors had to communicate with him in sign language. The Greek word used to describe his condition, kophos, can mean deaf as well as dumb (cf. Luk 7:22). Zechariah authoritatively settled the argument about his son’s name by writing, "John is his name." God had named John before his conception. Apparently the neighbors expressed astonishment because no other family member had that name.
"One of the major lessons is that even if all his neighbors do not understand why Zechariah does not do things the way they have been done, he will walk where God tells him to walk. . . .
". . . How do we define life? Is it in power and in the ability to ’take control,’ or is it in following the one who is in control?" [Note: Bock, Luke, pp. 78, 81.]