The inner witness of the Holy Spirit confirms this promise of Scripture to my soul, but the gospel does more than just offer out that future promise of healing; it also works as a soothing-balm for the wound of sin until that final perfect restoration is realised. The Holy Spirit works through the gospel to our souls in the now, helping to alleviate – or soothe – many of the symptoms of sin that cause us so much current suffering.

The time has come for my monthly medication delivery for the small handful of incurable illnesses (by modern medicine standards at any rate) that I now possess in my body. This month, as I placed the near two carrier bags full of tablets down by my bedside cabinet, I noticed my Bible sitting nearby and my mind turned to the promises of healing within the gospel.
In my near-decade as a preacher, and despite those many gospel-declarations being proclaimed from out of my own sickly body, I think that I have only ever preached on those gospel promises of healing once, from Romans 8:23. Even then, I think that the gist of that message was very simply: “Sufferings within this current time is normal. During these sufferings there are groanings within for the perfect future. These groanings are a reminder of the hope that we have for the future.”
I have often thought upon Romans 8:23 (and the similar message from 2 Cor. 5:2, 4). The reality is I have experienced this groaning from within (both audible and silent) far more than I have ever let on. Why, then, haven’t I preached more on those promises of healing within the gospel? After all, we all suffer, and there are many, many others who suffer from various types of illnesses in similar ways to myself.
The reason for this, I think, is that while I have a lot more experience of illnesses, and the suffering caused by those illnesses, than I would have ideally liked[1], what do I know about a perfect freedom from all of sin’s effects? The fact is, I know nothing about that. What I do know about, however, is the feeling of the morphine hitting the right spot when hospitalised due to Crohn’s flare ups, and that, at any rate, feels pretty good!
I know nothing of freedom from the effects of sin – I can scarcely even remember, by this point, of freedom from the effects of illness – but the Holy Spirit that God has given to me as a groaning witness within knows what this perfect future redemption of our bodies will be like, and He is telling us that it is going to be so, so good! In fact, it will be so good that even the worst “sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us” (Rom. 8:18).
Knowing that, we are left with a great hope. We can now listen to those wondrous examples of miraculous healing by Jesus and His disciples and, rather than feel a sense of bitter jealousy and dejection, we can be excited by what it is store for all of the children of God – and by grace we have been saved!
There are certain illnesses that can even be used to tell the story of the gospel’s promises. Say, for example, with large wound in the arm that has also picked up an infection. The doctor will give you antibiotic medication to fight the infection, but this medication does not bring an instantaneous cure to that infection. What it does bring, however, is the promise of that cure (assuming that the correct kind of antibiotic has been given). Knowing that the suffering caused by the infection should soon be over certainly offers us a hope within the suffering that helps to strengthen and hearten our inner spirits.
Chances are we still might not actually feel any sense of that cure coming within the first few days, so, in the meantime, the doctor may have given us a cooling balm to alleviate some of those surface level symptoms of an infected sore, such as a tormenting itchiness!
In Old Testament times, the region of Gilead was associated with healing balms. It was used by the prophet Jeremiah as a metaphor for the gospel message, a metaphor taken up by many gospel preachers ever since. There is something about this that it is so, so important and helpful for us to know:
The gospel message of the salvation in Jesus Christ offers out the promise of a perfect redemption of our bodies – redeeming it from all of the awful effects of sin, including illness and disease. More than that, as a child of God saved by God’s grace, the gospel does not just offer out that promise of redemption from illness and disease to me (as well as all of the other awful effects of sin, of course), but it tells me that this future physical redemption of the body is absolutely certain (as well as the spiritual redemption of the body too, praise God!).
Knowing that this is true is a wonderful comfort, and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit confirms this promise of Scripture to my soul, but the gospel does more than just offer out that future promise of healing; it also works as a soothing-balm for the wound of sin until that final perfect restoration is realised. The Holy Spirit works through the gospel to our souls in the now, helping to alleviate – or soothe – many of the symptoms of sin that cause us so much current suffering.
This is true spiritually, of course (think about the how the gospel helps to alleviate those feelings of guilt and shame associated with past sins, despite the fact we continue to commit more sins), but this is true of our physical sufferings, of our illnesses and diseases, too. The gospel may not offer physical relief in the same way a physical soothing balm would, but it certainly does help us in those battles that are physical, as well as those that are spiritual.
When the gospel is preached to Christians, the Holy Spirit is working within, applying its soothing balm upon our wounds. Maybe your wound was caused by a seemingly losing battle with besetting sins. Maybe your wound was caused by a seemingly losing battle with illness. Either way, the gospel does not just promise the future redemption from those things, but it also applies a much-needed soothing balm for those wounds to help us in the now too.
Preachers, keep preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, even if you are preaching to the converted! That same good news message that once saved us will continue to help us until we come to meet with our precious Lord face-to-face. The Holy Spirit within continues to use the gospel of Jesus Christ for our good in ways past our finding out, leading us over and again to Jesus Christ, the Great Physician, working to ever deepen and strengthen our union with Him.
[1] Deliberate understatement!
Matthew Prydden is an itinerant preacher from Wales, Reformed, Calvinistic, and Evangelical. This article is used with permission.
Related Posts:

Written by O. Palmer Robertson |
Friday, June 14, 2024
You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.

Dipping the bread into the wine as a method of distributing and receiving the elements of the Lord’s supper is a matter that has recently come into discussion among some churches. This procedure, commonly called “intinction,” has significance in the life of the church because it directly affects the manner in which this sacrament, instituted by Christ, should be properly celebrated.
People who favor allowing intinction as one method for the distribution and reception of the elements of the Lord’s supper indicate that they see certain advantages in this procedure, and find nothing in Scripture that would disallow it. Among other considerations, they note the following:
(1) It is perhaps the most convenient way to distribute the elements.
(2) It emphasizes the central fact of the one celebration supper involving two elements.
(3) It falls naturally into the category of various other aspects of the celebration of the Lord’s supper in which a breadth of procedures is acknowledged as appropriate. These various aspects include: the type of bread that is used, whether of a single loaf or multiple pieces; the use of wine or unfermented grape juice, or an option of both; whether the elements are distributed among a seated congregation or the congregation comes forward to receive the elements; whether the people take the elements individually or simultaneously. These various aspects of celebrating the Lord’s supper are all generally regarded as acceptable, and left up to the various congregations. In a similar way, it is proposed that dipping the bread in the wine and taking both elements together in the sop falls into this same category of aspects in the celebration of the supper that may be experienced in equally legitimate but differing ways. Objecting to the procedure of intinction would seem to be making a large issue out of a small matter.
However, certain aspects of the biblical witness must be given full consideration. It is, after all, Scripture that must provide the defining word in all issues before the Lord’s church, whether it be matters clearly addressed or matters requiring more careful consideration. In this regard, several aspects of the biblical testimony deserve the church’s attention.
First, the nature of the sacraments.
In contrast with the verbalization of the truth in the preaching of the Word, the sacrament communicates redemptive truth by the use of symbolic elements and actions. In the case of baptism, the minister applies the one element of water by the one action of sprinkling, pouring or immersing. The one element and the one action provide the method by which a person enters the covenant community, and symbolize the descent of the Spirit on the person as well as the washing away of sins.
In the case of the Lord’s supper, the minister makes two statements regarding the two elements. Regarding symbolic action, the minister takes the bread, breaks the bread, distributes the bread, and the people eat the bread. For the cup, the minister takes the cup, gives the cup and the people drink the cup. But does the congregation receive the bread and the cup with two actions or with one action?
The symbolic actions of the Lord’s supper are particularly significant due to the historic setting of its original institution. The time is specified as “the night in which he was betrayed,” the night before his death (1 Cor. 11:23). These words and actions represent what may be called Jesus’ “last will and testament.” More precisely, they are the words and actions that institute the “new covenant.” More sacred in biblical culture than a “last will and testament” are the words instituting a “covenant.” In his letter to the Galatians, Paul underscores the sacredness of the wording of a covenant: “Even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified” (Gal. 3:15 ESV). The words and actions of Jesus as recorded by the gospels and Paul institute the new covenant, the consummating covenant. If no one dares to modify a single word or phrase of a normal person’s last will and testament, or a human covenant, how much less is it appropriate for a person to modify a divine covenant, or what may be regarded as virtually the last will and testament of our Lord? These are his consummating covenantal words. They must be held in sacred honor. Neither the words nor the actions clearly indicated should be modified in any way. The symbolic significance of the actions as well as the words of Jesus in the institution of the Lord’s supper must be reverently preserved and observed.
Second, the clear establishment of two distinctive elements and two distinctive actions.
The sacrament of baptism clearly has one element and one action: water and the application of the water. The sacrament of the Lord’s supper just as clearly has two elements and two actions: bread broken and eaten; the cup of wine presented and drunk. Two distinct elements and two distinct actions. Underscoring the distinction between the two actions is the clear indicator of a pause that occurred between the partaking of the two different elements. Both Luke’s gospel and Paul’s letter state that they ate the bread and then “after supper” they took the cup (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). Unless it be proposed that Luke and Paul improperly added the notation about “after supper” between the taking of the two elements, it is clear that drinking the wine is separated from eating the bread.
Even if no reason at all could be found for the separation in time between eating the bread and drinking the wine, it would be altogether appropriate to follow the clear pattern established by the Lord. He is as it were on his death-bed. These are his precise instructions. These instructions and these procedures should be followed.
Yet good reason for a separation between eating the bread and drinking the wine resides inherently in the two separate elements and the differing manner in which they are received. Consider first the distinctive symbolism inherent in the two physical elements of the sacrament, and the different manner in which these two distinct elements are received. Secondly, remember the redemptive-historical context of the institution of the Lord’s supper. Thirdly, note particularly the symbolism of the cup. Fourthly, consider the procedure followed in the eating and drinking.
1. The distinctive symbolism of the two elements, and the differing manner in which they are received.
The bread. The bread symbolizes the body of Jesus. The bread is broken as Jesus’ body was broken. It was broken on the cross. From the crown of his head to the sole of his feet, his body was broken. From the right hand to the left outstretched, his flesh was pierced and his bones were broken by the nails. The spear of the centurion pierced his side. Jesus’ entire body was broken for you.
What do you do with the bread? You smell the bread. You hold the bread. You place the bread in your mouth. You crush the bread with your teeth. You share the guilt for the breaking of his body. By God’s grace it was broken for you. You swallow the bread, personally accepting his body as broken for you. That is the symbolic significance of the breaking and the eating of the bread.
The cup of wine. The cup of wine symbolizes the life-blood of Jesus poured out in sacrifice for you. By these two separate elements of the Lord’s supper, Jesus vividly displays the total character of his sacrifice for sinners. His body broken, his life-blood poured out.
Wine has different physical characteristics than bread. It has the semblance of blood. Wine smells differently than bread. It has a pungent odor. Wine creates different sensations when taken into the mouth. Bread does not sting when eaten. But wine burns as it is being swallowed. As you take the wine and experience the physical sensations it causes, you are vividly reminded that Jesus poured out his life-blood as a sacrifice for you. The burning sensation of the wine can hardly compare with the pain Jesus’ flesh experienced when the thorns pierced his head and the nails pierced his hands and feet. But at least the stinging of the wine serves as a physical reminder that he was wounded for your transgressions, bruised for your iniquities.
His body broken—the bread. His blood poured out—the wine. Take and eat. Drink, all of you, of it. Two symbolic elements, two symbolic actions of receiving.
But the bread made soggy with the wine. You do not experience the crushing of the bread. You do not experience the stinging of the wine. You can neither “crush” nor can you “drink” soggy bread. All the rich symbolism intended by Jesus as he deliberately separates the two symbolic elements from one another are lost. By the action of dipping the bread in the wine you have numbed the intended impact of both elements. Dipping the bread in the wine mutes the rich symbolism embedded in the two separate elements, the crusty bread and the potent wine.
It has been suggested that the words of institution spoken by the minister adequately communicate the difference of the bread in distinction from the wine. But to substitute the words of institution for the symbolic actions is to lose the point of a sacrament. By having the recipient ingest the two elements physically and separately, the truth pronounced by the differing words finds full reinforcement through the symbolism of the two separated actions.
2. The biblical-theological significance of the two elements and the two actions.
A further consideration emphasizes the significance of the two elements and the two actions, which is the place in redemptive history of the institution of the Lord’s supper. As redemptive history progresses, each subsequent covenant incorporates by substance and symbol God’s previous covenants. The covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Mosaic covenant incorporates the basic elements of the covenant-inauguration ceremony of the Abrahamic covenant, though differing in its mode. Abraham saw in his vision a smoking pot and a flaming torch passing between the shattered pieces of the divided animals. In this way God “cut a covenant” with Abraham (Gen. 15:18). God pledged to absorb into himself the curses of the covenant by symbolically “passing between the pieces.” This symbolic action found its fulfillment in the crucifixion of Christ. Moses at Sinai could hardly have required over three million people to “pass between the pieces” in a covenant-making ceremony.
Read More
Related Posts:

The kingdom of God has been commenced. It is this reality that defines our lives, directs our steps, and encourages our hearts for life in this fallen world that is in opposition to God and His Christ. As God’s people we are called to overcome, to stand against the forces of a fallen world and to strive for the advancement of the kingdom of God. We fight not for victory but in victory, overcoming by the blood of the Lamb. 

To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood,and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father,to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. (Rev. 1:5–6, NKJV)
How does the book of Revelation contribute to our perspective on the kingdom of God? We can answer this question by considering the way our vision works. My wife recently had cataract surgery. She was given several lens replacement options. She chose to have a distance lens put in one eye and a close lens in the other. That would leave it up to her brain to figure things out so that she could focus near and far.
That’s how Revelation works to give us perspective in relation to the kingdom of God. On the one hand, we see the kingdom of God present in power. Through rich symbolism and biblical imagery and prophetic word, we are shown Jesus Christ who lives and reigns on high. He is the lion of the tribe of Judah. He is the root of David. And He has conquered and has begun to reign.
Read More
Related Posts: