Rhemas: Hidden Wisdom in Scripture?

You are here:

Home
Featured Article
Rhemas: Hidden Wisdom in Scripture?

Rhemas: Hidden Wisdom in Scripture?

22 July 2014, 09:25

Since our readership has rapidly expanded over the past few years, and especially during the past few months, we want to take some time this summer to draw attention to earlier articles for those who may have missed them. Today's article was among those from our first few months and was published on Recovering Grace in September of 2011.

A common critique of Mr. Gothard is how he handles interpretation of Scripture. One major aspect of his interpretational methods can be found in his teachings on rhemas. But do his teachings on rhemas even have a sound basis in Scripture? For your enjoyment I offer the following quiz.

1. T/F: All words in Scripture have precise Biblical meanings. “In the New Testament, the Greek words logos and rhema are both translated word. However, they are not synonyms for the same idea, but each have precise Biblical meanings, as do all words in Scripture.”¹

False. No language is that precise. This idea that Koine Greek was an exceptionally precise language and thus perfectly suited for the New Testament to be written in is a myth spread by some pastors and teachers. You could confirm the fallacious nature of Mr. Gothard’s claim with any linguist or Greek scholar, but in the meantime lets just refer to a scholar that Mr. Gothard himself cites in his article–Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Google this book and look up the definition given for logos. You will find that, instead of one precise meaning, Vine’s gives the word logos at least four different meanings.

Rhema and logos are, in fact, synonyms and used interchangeably throughout the New Testament.

2. T/F: Logos is generally used to refer to the totality of the Word of God as well as the person of Jesus Christ. For example: “The seed is the Word [logos] of God” (Luke 8:11). “Holding forth the word [logos] of life” (Philippians 2:16). “Rightly dividing the word [logos] of truth” (II Timothy 2:15). “For the word [logos] of God is quick, and powerful” (Hebrews 4:12). “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word [logos] of God” (I Peter 1:23). “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word [logikos, from logos], that ye may grow thereby” (I Peter 2:2).

Note first of all that Mr. Gothard seems to have backed off from his claim that logos has “one precise meaning.” Instead he gives two possible meanings and implies that there are possible other meanings as well. After all, if a word has one precise meaning in Scripture, it does not “generally refer to” a meaning–it must always refer to that meaning. So much for the idea that all words in Scripture have a precise meaning, much less logos.

But the answer to the question is: False. Scripture doesn’t even “generally refer to” the meanings Mr. Gothard asserts. By my (very generous) count, of the 330 times logos appears, only about 105 times does it refer to the totality of the Word of God or the person of Jesus. So instead of it “generally” referring to the meanings Mr. Gothard gives, it does so only about a third of the times it appears.

3. T/F: In Scripture rhema generally “refer[s] to the spoken word given by a living voice and is used to describe particular messages that were given to individuals for their personal application.” For example, “Peter remembered the word [rhema] of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice” (Matthew 26:75).

Again, notice that Mr. Gothard doesn’t say that rhema always means “the spoken word given by a living voice, etc.,” only that it generally does. Whatever happened to his claim of “one precise meaning”? But that glaring inconsistency aside, does it really “generally” mean what Gothard asserts? Well, of the 70 times rhema appears, there are at least 10 times where it clearly doesn’t mean “the spoken word given by a living voice and is used to describe particular messages that were given to individuals for their personal application,”² and another 20 times where such a definition doesn’t fit without a considerable amount of forcing. The exceptions are too frequent and pronounced to make the answer to this question a “False”.

Most interesting are the times where rhema takes on the meaning Mr. Gothard ascribes to logos and vice versa. For example, in Revelation 17:17, rhema is used to refer to the whole of God’s Word. Then notice how Mr. Gothard uses Matthew 26:75 to support his claimed definition of rhema and compare this to Luke 22:61,62 where logos is used instead. The story and wording are close to identical, but logos is used in one case and rhema in the other. In other words, a clear demonstration that logos and rhema are synonyms:

And Peter remembered the word (rhema) of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly. (Mt 26:75)

And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word (logos) of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. (Luke 22:61,62)

4. T/F: In Scripture the Gospel is referred to as rhema. “The word [rhema] is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word [rhema] of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved…. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word [rhema] of God” (Romans 10:8–9, 17).

False. In Scripture the Gospel is referred to using both logos and rhema. For example: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word (logos), and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24).³ Since rhema and logos are synonyms this presents no difficulty. It’s Mr. Gothard’s effort to create unique and distinct definitions that leads to all sorts of inconsistencies.

5. T/F Since every word of God is inspired, and “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Timothy 3:16), it is the Holy Spirit Who illuminates particular Scriptures for application in a daily walk with the Lord. For example, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word [rhema] that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4), and “The words [rhema] that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63).

True. However, this is a case of Mr. Gothard mixing a little truth with a lot of falsehood and coming to some very problematic conclusions. What Mr. Gothard does is to create a distinction between rhema and logos. To him, logos is the basic meaning of a passage. Rhema on the other hand is seen as a hidden meaning which needs to be specially revealed by the Holy Spirit–the meaning behind the meaning so to speak. But, as we have seen, this is a false distinction–rhema and logos are synonyms and are used interchangeably throughout the NT.

So, while it is true that the Holy Spirit illuminates Scriptures for application, it is not true that He does so in “rhemas” (vs. logos). For example, the Holy Spirit will illuminate what it truly and practically means to “love your neighbor as yourself,” but there is no scriptural reason to believe that illumination leads to some rhema insight that differs from or is hidden behind the contextual meaning of a passage.

Now try this last question:
Jesus is talking to the rich young ruler who wishes to know how to inherit eternal life and has told him to follow the 10 commandments. “The young man said to Him, ‘All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.’ But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.” (Matt 19:20-22)

In the Greek the underlined word is either logos or rhema. Since the statement Christ makes is clearly not “the whole of Scripture” but is instead a “spoken word given by a living voice and used to describe particular messages that is given to an individual for their personal application,” which would have to be the proper word used in verse 22 according to Mr. Gothard? Remember, according to him all words have one precise meaning, and rhema and logos can’t be synonyms.

Hint: The correct answer is not what Mr. Gothard would lead you to believe.

¹ All the content of the quiz is quoted or paraphrased from
http://billgothard.com/teaching/rhemas
²Matt 5:11; 12:36; 18:16; Luke 1:37; Acts 5:32; 6:11,13; Heb 1:3; 11:13; 12:19
³ Some other examples: Joh 5:24, Joh 5:38, Joh 8:31, Joh 8:51, Joh 14:23, Acts 2:41, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:31.

All articles on this site reflect the views of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Recovering Grace contributors or the leadership of the site. Students who have survived Gothardism tend to end up at a wide variety of places on the spiritual and theological spectrum, thus the diversity of opinions expressed on this website reflects that. For our official statement of beliefs, click here.

Featured Article

About the author

David Moeller is married and is a father of five children. He grew up in the public school system, but after his family joined the Advanced Training Institute he worked in various training centers from 1995 to 2001. David has been writing about Bill Gothard's abuses of Scripture for over a decade.

17 Comments

Don Rubottom July 22, 2014 Reply

Just checked to see if BG had altered his rhemas discussion since this was published, as he has altered his circumcision teaching. But he has not, so his error remains easy for all to verify.
This was a great posting, just the kind of clear explanation many of us need to weed out the junk. Thanks for reposting!
Ryan July 22, 2014 Reply

Google sure has turned out to be a pain in the rear, hasn't it Bill?
Will July 22, 2014 Reply

I remember as a kid after the Basic Seminar or maybe a Counseling Seminar I looked up the Greek words for "word" and saw that there were many more than just "Rhema" & "Logos". I was surprised and brought this to the attention of my mother, because she was the more academic minded of my parents. I will never forget her response, "Mr. Gothard has spent his whole life studying these things, he knows more than we ever will about them. You should not question what he is teaching"
I am still amazed when I think of all the educated, intelligent people who were completely taken by Bill Gothard.
rob war July 22, 2014 Reply

if one just does a simple google search of the Greek meaning of logos and rhema, there are more uses than either what BG has done or what the author implies here which is that both words are interchangeable to the English "word". Rhema in Greek literally means an utterance and thing said. Logos which is the basis of our word logic can mean word, reason or the term used for the principal order and knowledge. The gospel of John by calling Jesus the incarnate Logos through which all things are made. While Bill Gothard most likely took his ideas about Rhemas and logos from Watchman Nee. Charismatic Churches likewise teach Rhema or spoken specific word as a spiritual gift. I'm not so sure looking at the scriptures given if it is just as simple as these two Greek words are interchangeable, nor are these two Greek words used as Gothard has implied.
- DavidM July 29, 2014 Reply
  
  Thanks for your comment. This article was not intended to be complete discussion of the topic of logos/rhema...much less of synonyms, semantic range and the like. The primary goal was to point out the extremely fallacious nature of Gothard's position. Certainly, the semantic range of "logos" encompasses much more than simply "word" and I apologize if I did not make this clear. Also, when I pointed out that they are used interchangeably was not meant to imply that this is the sum of their usages. "They are used interchangeably throughout Scripture" was not meant to say they can be interchanged in all instances - merely that they function as synonyms and do not have totally distinct meanings as Gothard claims.
Veronique July 23, 2014 Reply

Very clever use of the Quiz format!

I personally liked having a word which expressed the idea that Scripture speaks to us personally--this message at this time for me personally -- and I hope we don't lose all the good that comes from knowing Jesus' voice as well as his Word("... the sheep follow him: for they know his voice." Jn 10:4)...just because Gothard was the one who taught it.

So, when I heard Gothard speak on rhemas, what I though he meant was just that I needed to listen to God's voice as I read God's Word.--to hear with my heart and not just my mind.

I'll try to find a better word for that.
- Ileata July 23, 2014 Reply
  
  I liked having word for that, too. But for me it very much turned into using my Bible reading time to find my daily horoscope. It pretty much ruined by walk with God for a time and I'm sad about that.
  
  Also, the way Gothard teaches it just isn't right. His supposed differences between "rhema" and "logos" in Scripture aren't really there. So, he based his teaching on something fabricated.
  - Victoria July 25, 2014 Reply
    
    "Using my Bible reading time to find my daily horoscope" - YES!!! I just realized that THIS is exactly why I hated the "rhema" teachings of BG!!! Thanks for phrasing it like this, Ileata! Even then, I knew somehow that something was wrong with this teaching. At the time I assumed that *I* was the problem, not BG. :)
    
    The pressure I felt at places like EXCEL, where the most "spiritual" girls found a "rhema" every day... I couldn't master that trick so I always felt less spiritual.
    
    The way I do it now is much healthier, I think. When I'm in need, God will bring a verse or passage to mind, & it feels personal & special. *That* is a "rhema" I can hang my hat on, not some forced, surface, trite verse that supposedly has magical power to improve my average, typical, no-crisis day.
- DavidM July 29, 2014 Reply
  
  Veronique, the fact that Scripture can speak to us personally is not dependent upon having a particular word for this concept. Too much is often made of particular Greek words and they can become fraught with meaning that has no real relationship to how Greek (much less language in general) works. A truthful concept does not need to be hung on a particular word - whether it be Greek or not :)
A 1970's "big red notebook" alum July 23, 2014 Reply

The primary voice of God in these last days is Jesus himself, according to Hebrews 1:1-2. Jesus, in turn, taught his followers that the Spirit, HIS Spirit (the Holy Spirit) would come along side them and even be IN them after he left, according to John 14-16. From then on, the common New Testament experience is described as "being led by the Spirit."
It seems to me there are a number of ways that leading occurs. The Spirit of Jesus uses the Scripture, other believers, and may even still use donkeys, at times, if that's what it takes to get through to us! "Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says ..."
I suggest not worrying too much about what to call it. The English word "WORD" serves just fine. The most important thing is to hear it and do it. The ill fruit of false teachers reveals whose words they're listening to.
By the way, BG, as you should now realize, God is in the business of revealing things, not hiding them!
- A 1970's "big red notebook" alum July 23, 2014 Reply
  
  [Sorry, next time I'll break the paragraphs apart!]
"Walt" July 24, 2014 Reply

I think a lot of things that were taught, like the "rhemas" idea, sprang not out of actual discovery, but rather from the need to continuously churn out to the IBLP faithful new insights from scripture.
- J.B. July 24, 2014 Reply
  
  It's delaying the "decline" segment of the product life cycle for as long as possible, pretty much.
Samuel Lundmark July 28, 2014 Reply

The Rhema/Logos supposed 2-way split was an "insight" that always eluded me as well since I was insistent at looking at the facts (even the limited ones I had on-hand). I could never resolve the sales pitch with reality on this topic, and while the subject turned into an exercise in frustration in our own family studies, we eventually accepted it as somehow a "greater revelation." That turned out to be a bad idea although those in my family of origin stopped quoting the authority of this Gothard revelation on this one since it was impossible to resolve the details.

The good in all of this is that I learned that Gothard actually enjoyed and lifting text out of the context in order to "prove something" that, in reality, did not exist.

On the other hand, he was critical of others who did so and came to different conclusions. In other words, it was one pope's word against another's.

Lacking respect for the authority of the Holy Spirit having authored the text in its context as it is written, both side of the fray lack authority.

It did not set well on me when Gothard claimed his authority to take Scripture out of context because the Apostle Paul with the verse concerning the ox treading out the corn. My immediate rebuttle: The Apostle Paul was writing Scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Gothard was only trying to defend his own actions when he was challenged.
J.B. July 29, 2014 Reply

I love how there are six T/F questions in this article, just like the Wisdom Booklets.
rob war August 1, 2014 Reply

Dave M,

I am wondering in reviewing your article if the push by BG to read the Bible to get Rhemas and this sort of private type relation and so called insight was ever rechecked by BG against historic and standard Christian teaching, thinking, understanding and theology. BG seemed to base much of that he taught based on so call Rhemas while he was reading, meditating and fasting on scripture. It seems like he never balanced any of these rhemas out either with his pastor or some other more balanced spiritual director. Most often when one looks at false prophets like Joseph Smith, Mohammed, etc is that they received "revelations" from God or angels with "new insights" or "forgotten" truths" and presents them as God said so. This seems to make BG more dangerous than one initially thought of. BG never seemed to double check his rhema insights which has lead to his incredible imbalanced teaching. I don't think BG came up with some of his so called new insights on his own. He seems to have read the Bible with some imbalanced ideas to begin with and took them from there.
- rob war August 1, 2014 Reply
  
  ops I mean in the first line Private revelation. Sorry!