In what many consider to be the most well-known prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah,
the prophet Isaiah foretold of the sufferings that Christ would endure
amid His trial and crucifixion, saying as if it had already happened:
According to Isaiah, not only was the Messiah going to suffer cruel punishment
on his way to the grave, but He would do so without opening His mouth.
He would be as silent as a sheep is before its shearers.
The problem that some have with this passage is that the Gospel writers indicate that Jesus did
open His mouth before His accusers, and also later while hanging on the cross.
After Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane,
the high priest questioned Jesus saying:
Jesus responded not with silence
but with two statements that infuriated the Jewish council. He said:
Jesus was then sent to Pilate where He was asked another question about His identity:
As He had done earlier that night,
He did not keep silent but answered Pilate with these words:
Even while hanging on the cross a few hours later,
Jesus made several memorable statements including:
So how could the suffering servant of Isaiah 53
be referring to Jesus since He did in fact open His mouth,
both during His trial and while hanging on the cross?
Obviously, if the phrase "He opened not His mouth"
meant that the Messiah would never speak one word while being oppressed and afflicted,
then Jesus could not have been the prophesied suffering servant.
And the inspired writers, preachers, and prophets of the 1st century who applied this passage to Him
must have been mistaken.
A proper understanding of this phrase, however,
reveals that it does not literally mean the accused did not open his mouth.
First, not even the skeptic would interpret this verse to mean that the
suffering servant literally kept his mouth closed,
that if he ever separated his lips so as to allow air, water, or food
to enter his mouth then the prophecy would be annulled.
Such would be a ridiculous interpretation of the phrase, "He opened not his mouth,"
because in this passage Isaiah clearly used the word mouth
and used it to refer to what the mouth does:
It aids in speaking.
A figure of speech known as metonymy-- metonymy of the cause.
Second, the phrases "open the mouth" and "do not open the mouth" are Hebrew idioms,
appearing both in the Old and New Testaments,
which frequently are used to refer more to the length, freedom, or kind of speech
rather than whether one or more words actually are or are not spoken.
When Jephthah--the ninth judge of Israel listed in the book of Judges--
spoke to his daughter following the victory
that the Lord had given Israel over the Ammonites, he said,
The phrase, "I have given my word to the Lord," in the New King James Version is literally:
Jephthah had already made a vow to the Lord saying,
The reason that Jephthah was so distraught after returning home from war and seeing his daughter
was not simply because he opened his mouth and prayed to God,
but because included in his prayer was a promise to God;
one that caused himself and his daughter great sadness.
Jephthah could have spoken to God all day
without making such a significant and life-changing statement.
And it might not have been described as a time in which Jephthah opened his mouth.
The phrase 'opened my mouth' meant that something extremely noteworthy was stated.
A promise to God was made that could not be broken.
Notice also how the idea of opening one's mouth is used on occasion in the New Testament.
Sometime after Philip had spoken with the eunuch from Ethiopia
about the passage of Scripture from which he was reading--
Isaiah 53 ironically enough-- the text states:
Notice that Philip had already been speaking with the eunuch and most likely had made other
introductory comments to this stranger that are not recorded by Luke in the book of Acts.
However, it was not until Philip began to speak at length to the eunuch
and to preach to him the good news of Jesus
that Philip was described as one who opened his mouth.
In chapter 10 of the book of Acts, Luke recorded Peter's visit with a Gentile named Cornelius.
After being summoned by the Spirit of God to travel to the city of Cornelius--Caesarea--
Peter departed on the next day.
Upon his arrival, Peter spoke to Cornelius about several things.
He first rebuked Cornelius for worshiping him saying,
He proceeded to speak with him about other things not specifically mentioned in the text,
and then he revealed to Cornelius and his household that God had shown him--a Jew--
that Gentiles should no longer be considered unclean.
After several minutes or perhaps even a few hours of conversation between Peter and Cornelius,
Luke then recorded that "Peter opened his mouth"
and gave a defense of the Christ and the Christian faith.
Had Peter's mouth been open before this time? Yes.
Had he already spoken to Cornelius about several things? Certainly.
Now Peter really begins to speak.
He had already been speaking, but now he opens his mouth.
Now he preaches the Gospel of Christ.
In writing to the church at Corinth, Paul once made the comment:
This statement obviously carries more meaning than simply 'Paul spoke to the Corinthians.'
Certain modern versions translate this verse using such words as 'openly' or 'freely'
to describe how Paul and Timothy spoke to the Corinthians.
Rather than suppressing various truths that would be beneficial to the church at Corinth,
they spoke openly and without restraint.
They unreservedly commended themselves and their ministry to the Corinthians
in order that they might accept their message.
This is how Paul used the phrase 'to open the mouth.'
When the prophet Isaiah wrote that the suffering servant
opened not his mouth while being oppressed and afflicted,
he did not mean that Jesus would never utter a word
from the time He was arrested in the garden until His death on the cross.
The thought behind this phrase is that Jesus would not
speak freely and unreservedly in defense of Himself.
Whereas Jesus could have responded to His accusers with an open mouth
and given a strong, lengthy defense of His innocence--
similar to how Philip, Peter, and Paul
testified of both Christ and their own ministry with an open mouth--
Jesus chose to restrain Himself before His accusers and tormentors.
Rather than calling 12 legions of angels to fight this battle for Him,
Jesus humbly submitted to His enemies.
Rather than performing some notable miracle before Herod so as to gain His freedom
and instead of striking the high priest with blindness
in an attempt to convince the Sanhedrin that He truly was the Son of God,
Jesus suppressed His powers.
Less than 24 hours earlier, Jesus had healed Malchus' severed ear,
yet Jesus did nothing to lighten His own affliction during His trial and crucifixion.
Not even mentioning the Malcus miracle so as to defend His deity.
In light of what Christ could have done to His accusers and what oral defense
He could have given before them on His own behalf,
Jesus' passive submission before them is quite remarkable. Truly:
To prophesy that the suffering servant "opened not his mouth"
is to use a Hebrew idiom and hyperbolic expression
which means that Jesus refrained from giving an exhaustive legal defense on His own behalf.
During much of His affliction and oppression, He was completely silent.
At other times, He spoke only a few words
none of which comes close to being the kind of defense He could have offered on His own behalf
had He been trying to avoid persecution and crucifixion.