Underneath the surface

Luke 7:22 in Luke's language is the clearest thematic fulfillment of Luke 4:18-19, itself in Jesus' eyes His own fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy/ies (i.e., Scripture). In Luke 4:18-19, Luke has Jesus in effect telling the reader the purpose of Jesus' public ministry, summarized also by Peter in Acts 10:38 to Cornelius & household simply as "doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil" (that is here considering His public ministry as somewhat independent of His Passion week, which Peter also summarizes in context). Cf also Lk. 4:43.

Yet in Luke 7:22, there are also differences in wording compared to 4:18. Differences that is unless some of the 7:22 specifics fall under 4:18f rubrics or unless the 4:18 summary was meant to be representative of other specifics. Even so, it is difficult for the reader to dismiss actual physical provisions of sight to the blind (miraculously), cleansing from leprosy, and other healings and exorcisms (such as of the demon possessed man in the pericope that follows the Nazareth events in Lk. 4) and even resurrections as physical and literal. There surely is a physical fulfillment to the Luke 4:18 "announcement" of public ministry (not that Jesus' Nazareth synagogue event was the first chronologically). Jesus really does heal and exorcise.

Yet again, in all of Luke-Acts, Luke seems little concerned to echo the Luke 4:18-19 language in Jesus' or in the following apostolic ministries (save here in Luke 7:22). Yes, there are literal recoveries of sight for the blind, but the setting at liberty from bondage and oppression must be comprised of demonic exorcisms rather than political liberation or legal manumission if the fulfillment is to be found in Luke-Acts at all.

Exorcism as fulfillment of "proclaiming liberty to the captives" and "setting at liberty those who are oppressed" may surely be considered "spiritual," especially if accompanied by the inception of discipleship to Jesus. If the "good news" proclaimed to the poor is partly comprised of physical deliverance of the sort that crop up repeatedly throughout Luke-Acts, more than physical deliverance is often at stake in the whole work. Take John the Baptist's shaken faith in context of Luke 7:22, for example. Or the attitude of the Nazarene folk to Jesus.

If the Son of Man came to seek and to save lost sinners like semi-traitor and ostensible thief Zacchaeus (Luke 19:10), the "found-ness" (as opposed to being "lost") of Zacchaeus seems to result in the man's repentance. Luke's thematic interest in repentance and the forgiveness of sins (e.g., Lk. 1:77, 3:3, 7:47, 24:47, Acts 2:38, 10:43) would seem the ultimate, if not only, fulfillment of Jesus' mission to liberate the captives and the oppressed. Liberation in this case is synonymous with deliverance from sin and from the devil. The prodigal son was dead, and is alive, was lost, and is found (Lk. 15). The year of the Lord's favor comes in earnest at Pentecost in Jerusalem and spreads to the uttermost part of the earth (of which latter Rome is a type) via the word of the cross, the message of the gospel, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Blessed indeed is the one who does not fall away on account of Jesus.

Isaiah55:6 said:

What are your thoughts? I find its an interesting thought.

Click to expand...

I will politely take a different position. First, I believe it is not correct to contrast "physical" with "spiritual". It is easy to do so precisely because we in the west have inherited Greek dualistic ideas that the world can be split into a "physical" domain and an "non-physical" domain.

I suggest the writers of scripture lived in a culture where such a division was not part of their worldview.

We tend to see Bible writers using "flesh" vs "spirit" language to denote a "physical" vs "non-physical" distinction whereas I believe the intended distinction is "old nature" vs "new nature".

In short: I believe the writers of the Bible did not think in terms of "physical" vs "non-physical". And the following is key: hard thought it may be to believe, I believe they did not use the word "spiritual" - at least not always - to denote something non-physical.

Isaiah55:6 said:

I was reading this the other day and couldn't help but wonder if there is something deeper going on here.

(Luke 7:22) "So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."

We can see here what is going on in more of a physical sense. But what if we look at it from a more spiritual side. It's almost like Jesus is prophetically proclaiming the gospel here.

Physical: ---------- spiritual:


The blind see ------ God removes our spiritual blindness so we can receive the gospel.

The lame walk ------- ( I'm still working on this. Any thoughts?)

Leprosy cleansed ------ the forgiveness of sins

The deaf here ------- God opens our ears to understand the gospel.

The dead are raised ------- we are dead in our sins and given new life.

Good new is proclaimed------ ( working on it. Any ideas?)

What are your thoughts? I find its an interesting thought.

Click to expand...

About the lame walking, this speaks to me of God ordaining our path and giving us a straight path to walk in.
.
Hebrews 12
12 Therefore strengthen the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed.

Psalm 16:11
You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

Psalm 17:4
Concerning the works of men, By the word of Your lips, I have kept away from the paths of the destroyer.

Psalm 17:5
Uphold my steps in Your paths, That my footsteps may not slip.

Psalm 18:36
You enlarged my path under me, So my feet did not slip.

Psalm 23:3
He restores my soul; He leads me in the paths of righteousness For His name’s sake.

Psalm 25:4
Show me Your ways, O Lord; Teach me Your paths.

expos4ever said:

I will politely take a different position. First, I believe it is not correct to contrast "physical" with "spiritual". It is easy to do so precisely because we in the west have inherited Greek dualistic ideas that the world can be split into a "physical" domain and an "non-physical" domain.

I suggest the writers of scripture lived in a culture where such a division was not part of their worldview.

We tend to see Bible writers using "flesh" vs "spirit" language to denote a "physical" vs "non-physical" distinction whereas I believe the intended distinction is "old nature" vs "new nature".

In short: I believe the writers of the Bible did not think in terms of "physical" vs "non-physical". And the following is key: hard thought it may be to believe, I believe they did not use the word "spiritual" - at least not always - to denote something non-physical.

Click to expand...

I understand it is true for example that when God created The Adam, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Man became a living being--a being that is in wholistic terms undifferentiated into body and soul or the like; that distinction came later, and even so, spirit and body were considered one. Nor does the Scripture display a Platonic universe even if it does speak of earthly versus heavenly realms--that is in terms with which generations of gentile Christians saw similarities to Platonism. This was in the early centuries of the church.

However, Isa55:6's differentiation between "physical" and "spiritual" as applied in context to healing of the body in contradistinction to healing of the soul, meaning salvation, seems an apt description matching the misunderstanding of the majority of Jews to whom Jesus had earthly dealings. The majority did not understand the--call it what you will--spiritual seeing and blindness for which Jesus' healing of the man born blind was an object lesson in John 9. They did not understand Jesus' distinction between seeing and seeing, or at least not the application Jesus was intending; they did not see Jesus for who He was, the Judge "that those who do not see may see, and [that] those who see may become blind."

To label such distinction in terms of "physical" versus "spiritual" is to represent the text of Scripture and what it says of the majority of Jews in Jesus' day. Not all dualisms are absent from Scripture or here from the Gospels (e.g., the strait versus broad ways or the wheat and the tares).

Or to suggest that by eye blindness, ear deafness, leprosy and death that Luke intended to mean "old nature" (presumably in Pauline terms) is an interesting typological theory, but I would question whether it takes the plain meaning of physical healing and resurrection (depending on case) seriously, while it introduces a dualism which would seem to require defending from Luke's texts--which is not to say that cannot be done. Indeed it appears we three are in agreement that physical healing points to the need for spiritual healing, or if you will, the need for a new nature in Pauline terms or more closely to Luke, the need to see, worship, and obey Jesus as Lord and Messiah.

Look Up said:

I understand it is true for example that when God created The Adam, He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and Man became a living being--.....

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your general point. I think that when Jesus says all these things - the blind see, the lame walk, etc., He means us to take Him quite literally: these are the kind of things that should be happening in the kingdom of God as instantiated here on Earth. I think there is a danger in "spiritualizing" them. For example, quite a few Christians rationalize not giving to the poor by arguing that Jesus is really talking about "spiritual poverty".

Isaiah55:6 said:

No I completely agree that this text is to be taken literally. I just find it interesting when you look at it this way.

Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying.

expos4ever said:

Not sure I understand your general point. I think that when Jesus says all these things - the blind see, the lame walk, etc., He means us to take Him quite literally: these are the kind of things that should be happening in the kingdom of God as instantiated here on Earth. I think there is a danger in "spiritualizing" them. For example, quite a few Christians rationalize not giving to the poor by arguing that Jesus is really talking about "spiritual poverty".

Click to expand...

I in turn do not understand your confessed misunderstanding of my former post, which was a reaction to your own, but I agree with what follows in your post immediately above and suspect our positions are not too far removed from each other.

"Spiritualizing" Scripture can be (and has been) a mechanism for avoiding the intent of the text.

But the act of exorcism can be considered a "spiritual" deliverance at least insofar as an unclean spirit--a demon--has been removed from the (whole) person. More significantly, if accompanying the exorcism, the person is converted to Jesus--if the belief and life are coincidentally changed so that the person becomes born again (as arguably for the Gadarene demoniac), that conversion event can be considered "spiritual." Or in some sense the whole--exorcism plus new birth--can be considered a kind of "spiritual healing." In addition, we have already in effect agreed that any physical deliverance accompanying the given exorcism--any healing of the body accompanying the departure of the demon--constitutes a physical or literal healing of the body rather than a "spiritualized" or allegorical or intangible deliverance.

I also agree it would be most un-Lukan to remove all traces of obligation to provide tangible, physical help for the economically poor from Luke's writings (let alone, e.g., from Deuteronomy, Amos, Isaiah, 2 Corinthians ...). Such argument would be rationalizing indeed. But for Luke, poverty is often more than merely economic and physical (though it usually is that too), encompassing for example such character traits as humility and faith--one might say "spiritual" traits, making Luke's "Blessed are the poor" potentially easy to harmonize with Matthew's "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Isaiah55:6 said:

I was reading this the other day and couldn't help but wonder if there is something deeper going on here.

(Luke 7:22) "So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."

We can see here what is going on in more of a physical sense. But what if we look at it from a more spiritual side. It's almost like Jesus is prophetically proclaiming the gospel here.

Physical: ---------- spiritual:


The blind see ------ God removes our spiritual blindness so we can receive the gospel.

The lame walk ------- ( I'm still working on this. Any thoughts?)

Leprosy cleansed ------ the forgiveness of sins

The deaf here ------- God opens our ears to understand the gospel.

The dead are raised ------- we are dead in our sins and given new life.

Good new is proclaimed------ ( working on it. Any ideas?)

What are your thoughts? I find its an interesting thought.

Click to expand...

One other thought--one I had first in reacting to the OP.

Luke seems little interested in a one-to-one correspondence between any particular bodily healing classification or case and some particular "spiritual" or salvific parallel (hence I think your difficulty with "the lame walk" and ambiguity). This is not to say that no Scripture author encourages something like this (cf. Jesus' "I am the resurrection" following Jesus' resurrecting Lazarus in Jn 11) or that such correspondences are necessarily misguided theologically, only that there seems little in Luke's writings to pin down what the correspondences are or to encourage the practice of viewing healings as metaphors for salvation.

If anything in Luke's writings, miracles of the healing (and resurrection) sort function (1) as an outworking of Jesus' compassion and (2) as signs to His power and identity (as in John's Gospel) stimulating either faith or reprehensible unbelief. He commends the faith of a Centurion, a woman who bled for 12 years, a Samaritan leper, and a blind man near Jericho in connection with corresponding healings. He heals a paralytic "so that you may know the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" while condemning Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum for failure to believe on account of all the miracles Jesus did in those cities (10:13ff). Nor could Jesus perform many miracles in Nazareth because of the residents' unbelief. And He sends out 70 to Israel to both proclaim the kingdom and to heal, with final interest to the project in garnering responses to who Jesus was.

Miracles of the exorcism sort on the other hand--healing from evil spirits in Luke 7:21 language--display Jesus' divine power over Satan's this-world dominion, a liberation that can extend to salvation from sin for those who believe and follow Jesus. And in exorcism I think Luke would be most comfortable seeing parallels to salvation/liberation. In Luke 13, a woman disabled for 18 years is healed on the Sabbath. In defense of the healing when challenged, Jesus says, "Satan has bound this this woman, a daughter of Abraham, for 18 years--shouldn't she be untied from this bondage on the Sabbath day?" (v. 16).

Thus if we are interested in Luke's interests, I still think my original post (#2) on this thread places Luke 7:22 as Luke would have it (note healing from evil spirits in 7:21), with the first key insight linking 7:22 as fulfillment of 4:18-19. Jesus tells imprisoned John the Baptist's free messengers of His healings and miracles in 7:22 to encourage John to keep believing He is the Messiah and not that the Messiah is someone in the future. The kingdom of God, to Jesus, is at hand, not remote. As I wrote, blessed is the one who does not fall away on account of Jesus (cf. 7:23). Bodily healings function as signs of Jesus' power and compassion and ability to forgive, but to Luke are not in themselves metaphors of or allegories to forgiveness of sin or new life.

expos4ever said:

I will politely take a different position. First, I believe it is not correct to contrast "physical" with "spiritual". It is easy to do so precisely because we in the west have inherited Greek dualistic ideas that the world can be split into a "physical" domain and an "non-physical" domain.

I suggest the writers of scripture lived in a culture where such a division was not part of their worldview.

We tend to see Bible writers using "flesh" vs "spirit" language to denote a "physical" vs "non-physical" distinction whereas I believe the intended distinction is "old nature" vs "new nature".

In short: I believe the writers of the Bible did not think in terms of "physical" vs "non-physical". And the following is key: hard thought it may be to believe, I believe they did not use the word "spiritual" - at least not always - to denote something non-physical.

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying here...but to an extent I disagree. Contrasting or demonstrating spiritual with physical is done quite a bit by Jesus Himself. "The Kingdom of heaven is like...." always followed by a physical representation. The Parables were often physical or flesh representations of a spiritual idea.

We see this sort of thing a lot in the Bible actually. Physical representations of something spiritual. The Passover for example. The smearing of the blood on the door was a picture of Calvary....The covering blood of Christ on the top and the two thieves down the sides.

But I agree that the Bible must first be taken literally before any spiritual applications are to be derived.

brotherjerry said:

I understand what you are saying here...but to an extent I disagree. Contrasting or demonstrating spiritual with physical is done quite a bit by Jesus Himself. "The Kingdom of heaven is like...." always followed by a physical representation. The Parables were often physical or flesh representations of a spiritual idea.

Click to expand...

I think you are assuming that to characterize something as "spiritual" is by definition to deny its physicality. But that is precisely the problem. I believe that the writers of scripture did not see a split between "spiritual" and "physical". That split, I suggest, is something we get from Greek Platonic thinking. And it trips us, and badly.

I agree that Jesus uses a lot of similes ("the Kingdom of God is like....."). But that does not mean the kingdom He is describing is an "non-physical" kingdom embedded in some mysterious domain of non-material "spirit".

Based on the rest of your post, I am not sure what you mean by "spiritual". I think that Paul and Jesus use the word "spiritual" to describe something or someone that is part of the "new creation" that Jesus initiated. And this "new creation" is not something immaterial and non-physical.

Here is an example where Paul characterizes something that is clearly a 'thing' in the real world of matter as 'spiritual':

44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body

Paul is clearly talking about our resurrection bodies - things with heads, legs, hands, etc.

Do you see what I am talking about?

expos4ever said:

I think you are assuming that to characterize something as "spiritual" is by definition to deny its physicality. But that is precisely the problem. I believe that the writers of scripture did not see a split between "spiritual" and "physical". That split, I suggest, is something we get from Greek Platonic thinking. And it trips us, and badly.

Click to expand...

Not assuming that at all...not even thinking that. Sorry if there was any confusion over that.

And I think the writers understood there was a split. Spirit is used over 200 times in the Old Testament alone. But we have to also consider the concept of an indwelt Spirit was not in the Old Testament, so the Holy Spirit worked around the people. There were physical manifestations of the presence of God. (burning bush, column of fire, etc). This continual physical manifestation can cause a blur between the lines of spiritual and physical. I mean if ghosts existed and were walking next to us every day, we would start to forget the idea that they are not physical but spirit.

And Paul and Jesus (and others) used "spirit" to refer to the Holy Spirit which was obviously spiritual. They understood that there is a difference. Yes often "spiritual" was in reference to something pertaining to the saved person, the new creature. But not always and never in reference to something physical.

Look at Romans 7:14 "For we know that the Law is spiritual"... Paul writes that the Law and following the Law had spiritual ramifications, not physical ramifications. People should have followed the law not for physical reasons (not getting punished, etc)...but because on a spiritual level it pleased God.
1 Corinthians 2:13 ..."not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words"
1 Corinthians 2:14 ..."and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised"
1 Corinthians 9:11 "If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?"
1 Corinthians 15:46 "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual"

So we can see that Paul understood that the physical and the spiritual were two separate things. This is ultimately because Paul understood that man is in three parts, the physical, the spirit, and the soul. Man was created in this way, when man fell the Spirit was removed, the fellowship with God was taken away. Remember Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 that we should not "fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" those that do not have the Spirit have only the body and the soul. But in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 we see "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ"

When we are made new creatures, we are made new spiritual creatures because we now have the Spirit indwelling in us. We are in Christ and Christ is in us. Which is why there is much reference of spiritual when it comes to those who are saved.

brotherjerry said:

Yes often "spiritual" was in reference to something pertaining to the saved person, the new creature. But not always and never in reference to something physical.

Click to expand...

But I just posted the text from 1 Cor 15 where Paul clearly describes a physical body as being a spiritual body. I am not saying to "spiritual" = "physical". I am merely saying that "spiritual" does not necessarily always refer to something outside the domain of the "physical".

brotherjerry said:

Look at Romans 7:14 "For we know that the Law is spiritual"... Paul writes that the Law and following the Law had spiritual ramifications, not physical ramifications.

Click to expand...

But you appear to assume an answer to the very question we are debating. Just for the sake of argument, let go of your concept of 'spiritual' and imagine, just for the moment that by 'spiritual', Paul means "transformed from a fallen state to a redeemed or renewed state".

Do you see the point? With this definition, Romans 7:14 still makes sense - the Law is part of God's entire program of redemption and renewal. Obviously the Law is not a physical thing. But to say it is spiritual does not mean that it does not fully apply in this present world of physical stuff.

Again, my point is that we need to be aware that we are "infected" by the Greek - and decidedly non-Biblical view - that the world can be split into a "physical" domain and an unseen "spiritual" domain. Yes, the Bible does use the word "spirit" to refer to "unseen" things. But that does not mean they are not part of the world of the physical. You cannot see the air but it is decidedly physical all the same.

brotherjerry said:

So we can see that Paul understood that the physical and the spiritual were two separate things. This is ultimately because Paul understood that man is in three parts, the physical, the spirit, and the soul.

Click to expand...

This I very much doubt. This is a Greek idea and I am quite confident you will not find anything in the Bible corresponding to the concept of 'soul' as it is almost universally used in our modern world. And I say this fully aware of the Matthew 10:28 text, which I think I can "explain".

But please check it out yourself - I think you will find the experts (the scholars who actually study the world in which Paul lived) will say that this "3 part" model of the human person was not believed.

No time now. I will come back to this later, hopefully.

Expos,

Again I understand exactly what you are referring to. But your initial premise is that you "suggest that the writers of Scripture lived in a culture where such a division (physical with spiritual) was not part of their world view"

I in turn expressed that I did not agree with this and provided Biblical evidence to support that position. The proof is in the writing.

As to your wind analogy...the wind is purely physical...you cannot see an atom or a molecule, but that is what you feel when the wind blows...physical elements moving through the space and colliding with your skin. You hear the effects of that same movement in the rustling of the leaves. Spiritual is not made up of atoms and molecules and while the writers did not have idea of atoms and molecules they had an understanding of the wind, the wind had been harnessed for thousands of years before Christ, they understood it was natural, not spiritual. Spiritual is beyond the physical.

And mind you I am not speaking of the sort of dualism of the Gnostics or even Platonism. They speak of two separate worlds with man stuck in the middle....In the Bible those worlds coexist, but one is also contained in the other...the physical is contained into the spiritual if we were to try and draw an image of things. The physical being our universe and all in it. However, Heaven is not in our universe, but it too is physical, just not in the same sense as the keyboard you are typing on. I do not believe that Christianity has been "infected" with that sort of dualism. Most Christians believe in a resurrected body (physical). The Bible describes figures in heaven as people, thus being physical. But there is another element and that being the spiritual. They are two different and separate things. But yet can and do co-exist and even "create" one person.

So in essense I believe that we agree, but I hold that there is still a difference and even a separation between what is physical and what is spiritual and that the writers of the Bible (Hebrew and Greek) understood this as well. I am probably just doing a terrible job of explaining my position.

As to the 3 part model...I think you will find that some of the early Scholars absolutely did believe this. Irenaeus, Tatian, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and several others all believed in the distinction between soul and spirit and that man also had a triune nature. Thus being made in the image of God.

brotherjerry said:

...
So we can see that Paul understood that the physical and the spiritual were two separate things. This is ultimately because Paul understood that man is in three parts, the physical, the spirit, and the soul. Man was created in this way, when man fell the Spirit was removed, the fellowship with God was taken away. Remember Jesus said in Matthew 10:28 that we should not "fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" those that do not have the Spirit have only the body and the soul. But in 1 Thessalonians 5:23 we see "Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" ...

Click to expand...

There are Protestants (at least) who believe humans (or in brotherjerry's case, only Christians) are comprised of body, soul, and spirit largely due to 1 Thes. 5:23 (cf. Heb. 4:12) while others--historically I suspect a majority--who see only a spiritual aspect and a physical aspect to human nature (both being united in one person.

Such debate is a digression from Luke 7:22 and the OP, however.

My post here is a plea to avoid further digression, to avoid derailing the conversation (further) from the context of Luke 7:22 and the OP even if we must continue to debate what we (and the Scriptures) mean and don't mean by "physical" and "spiritual" (or figurative?) in relation to Luke 7:22 and the OP. Best to address the OP directly or address existing posts which directly address the OP in such a way as to preserve the thread focus (otherwise start a new thread or ... review past threads that discuss 1 Thes. 5:23).

I can respect that.
Expos if you care to discuss further please feel free to start a new thread concerning the topic.