…the idea of “rhemas” (from the Greek word rhema meaning “word” or “specific word”) being special revelations of God to us in His Word to give us specific direction for a specific task. It’s like a couple is trying to decide whether they should buy a piece of land, and check it out! They pick up their Bible and find: “See, the LORD your God has placed the land before you; go up, take possession, as the LORD, the God of your fathers, has spoken to you. Do not fear or be dismayed.” (Deuteronomy 1:21) God must have given us a specific word to tell us what to do!
If it was unclear in my last posting regarding what Edwards thought of the concept of rhemas, I think this one will hopefully explain things clearer, as he addresses the topic head-on. What he argues for is that being led by the Holy Spirit is not a Scripture taken out of context to support a life decision, but having the spiritual beauty (the moral perfection, he calls it) of a given text revealed to the person, and acting upon it. I am having to rethink the ways I’ve believed the Holy Spirit leads, and especially what I should be pleading for every time I open up my Bible.
This is quite a ride, and since I have no idea whether anyone ever checks this website anymore, I feel free to be as lengthy as I want. [:)] Here’s where he sets up the contrast. Any added emphasis is from me:
In Part Three, Section IV of The Religious Affections, Jonathan Edwards wrote:
From what has been said, it is also evident, that it is not spiritual knowledge for persons to be informed of their duty, by having it immediately suggested to their minds, that such and such outward actions or deeds are the will of God. If we suppose that it is truly God’s manner thus to signify his will to his people, by immediate inward suggestions, such suggestions have nothing of the nature of spiritual light. Such kind of knowledge would only be one kind of doctrinal knowledge; a proposition concerning the will of God, is as properly a doctrine of religion, as a proposition concerning the nature of God, or a work of God; and a having either of these kinds of propositions, or any other proposition, declared to a man, either by speech, or inward suggestion, differs vastly from a having the holy beauty of divine things manifested to the soul, wherein spiritual knowledge does most essentially consist. Thus there was no spiritual light in Balaam; though he had the will of God immediately suggested to him by the Spirit of God from time to time, concerning the way that he should go, and what he should do and say.
I find this remarkable and noteworthy. I know too many people who expect God to reveal His will for their lives through the daily reading of the Bible and taking something in it as a direct commentary on their situation, regardless of its context, intended meaning, and beautiful holiness. What is beautiful is that the person receives this magical “word from the Lord” that they should do this or that, and they say this is the Holy Spirit’s leading. There is nothing of the holiness of God, of tasting or relishing the truth in the Word for its spiritual beauty. Even natural man can read poetry and get a “rhema” about a job, life partner, etc.
But Edwards doesn’t stop there. He goes on.
It is manifest, therefore, that a being led and directed in this manner [that is, immediate suggestion of a Scripture to the mind, regardless of its spiritual beauty], is not that holy and spiritual leading of the Spirit of God, which is peculiar to the saints, and a distinguishing mark of the sons of God, spoken of, Rom. 8:14: “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, are the sons of God.” Gal. 5:18, “But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.”
The next part is lengthy, but as usual, I found it helpful to read it aloud to myself. He will now back up his assertion.
And if persons have the will of God concerning their actions, suggested to them by some text of Scripture, suddenly and extraordinarily brought to their minds, which text, as the words lay in the Bible before they came to their minds, related to the action and behavior of some other person, but they suppose, as God sent the words to them, he intended something further by them, and meant such a particular action of theirs; I say, if persons should have the will of God thus suggested to them with texts of Scripture, it alters not the case. The suggestion being accompanied with an apt text of Scripture, does not make the suggestion to be the nature of spiritual instruction.
“Something further” than what? Than what they clearly say in and of themselves, without any relation to my duty or decision. In case you’ve had a hard time following me in what “rhemas” are (which I tried to explain in the previous post on this topic), he illustrates with perfection the teaching on “rhemas.”
As for instance, if a person in New England, on some occasion, were at a loss whether it was his duty to go into some popish or heathenish land, where he was like to be exposed to many difficulties and dangers, and should pray to God that he would show him the way of his duty; and after earnest prayer, should have those words which God spake to Jacob, Gen. 46, suddenly and extraordinarily brought to his mind, as if they were spoken to him; “Fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will go with thee; and I will also surely bring you up again.” In which words, though as they lay in the Bible before they came to his mind, they related only to Jacob, and his behavior; yet he supposes that God has a further meaning, as they were brought and applied to him; that thus they are to be understood in a new sense, that by Egypt is to be understood this particular country he has in his mind, and that the action intended is his going thither, and that the meaning of the promise is, that God would bring him back into New England again.
We must now ask Edwards why this isn’t being led by the Spirit, because I don’t know about you, not only do I know people who use Scripture in this way, but I’ve done it myself! A few years ago, when I was struggling with deciding whether I should rid myself of desires for marriage for a girl, and when I’d open up my Bible, look!, it opened right to Song of Solomon! Surely that’s the Spirit hinting at something….
There is nothing of the nature of a spiritual or gracious leading of the Spirit in this; for there is nothing of the nature of spiritual understanding in it. Thus to understand texts of Scripture, is not to have a spiritual understanding of them. Spiritually to understand the Scriptures, is rightly to understand what is in the Scripture, and what was in it before it was understood: it is to understand rightly, what used to be contained in the meaning of it, and not the making of a new meaning. When the mind is enlightened spiritually and rightly to understand the Scripture, it is enabled to see that in the Scripture, which before was not seen by reason of blindness. But if it was by reason of blindness, that is an evidence that the same meaning was in it before, otherwise it would have been no blindness not to see it; it is no blindness not to see a meaning which is not there.
Eesh. In other words, if we’re described as being blind to a text of Scripture, it’s not the subjective application we’re blind to, but the original meaning that has always been there which we’ve missed due to our blindness. It’s not a new meaning we’re blind to, but the original meaning. But the man keeps rolling!
Spiritually enlightening the eyes to understand the Scripture, is to open the eyes: Psal. 119:18, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law;” which argues that the reason why the same was not seen in the Scripture before, was that the eyes were shut; which would not be the case, if the meaning that is now understood was not there before, but is now newly added to the Scripture, by the manner of the Scripture’s coming to my mind. This making a new meaning to the Scripture, is the same thing as making a new Scripture; it is properly adding to the word, which is threatened with so dreadful a curse. Spiritually to understand the Scripture, is to have the eyes of the mind opened, to behold the wonderful spiritual excellency of the glorious things contained in the true meaning of it, and that always were contained in it, ever since it was written; to behold the amiable and bright manifestations of the divine perfections, and of the excellency and sufficiency of Christ, and the excellency and suitableness of the way of salvation by Christ, and the spiritual glory of the precepts and promises of the Scripture, etc., which things are, and always were in the Bible, and would have been seen before, if it had not been for blindness, without having any new sense added, by the words being sent by God to a particular person, and spoken anew to him, with a new meaning.
And here the danger is clearly stated: to conceive of the Word of God in this way is to conceive of a new Word of God. It is dangerous, fallible, and condemned by Scripture. There is meaning enough, Edwards would argue, in the pages of Scripture to provide everything we need for life and godliness; but it’s not a Ouija Board!
So how are people led by the Spirit? Edwards gives part of the answer, and with it I’ll close. But I bring all this up to say: the Word of God is active, alive, sharper than any two-edged Sword, not because it can reveal life choices in a mystical paranormal way, but because the Holy Spirit can reveal the true beauty of holiness in what is already there and has always been there which will incline us to Him. When we see that, we will make our decisions based on faith (that is, being satisfied with all God promises to be for us in Christ).
And as to a gracious leading of the Spirit, it consists in two things: partly in instructing a person in his duty by the Spirit, and partly in powerfully inducing him to comply with that instruction. But so far as the gracious leading of the Spirit lies in instruction, it consists in a person’s being guided by a spiritual and distinguishing taste of that which has in it true moral beauty. I have shown that spiritual knowledge primarily consists in a taste or relish of the amiableness and beauty of that which is truly good and holy: this holy relish is a thing that discerns and distinguishes between good and evil, between holy and unholy, without being at the trouble of a train of reasoning. As he who has a true relish of external beauty, knows what is beautiful by looking upon it; he stands in no need of a train of reasoning about the proportion of the features, in order to determine whether that which he sees be a beautiful countenance or no; he needs nothing, but only the glance of his eye. He who has a rectified musical ear, knows whether the sound he hears be true harmony; he does not need first to be at the trouble of the reasonings of a mathematician about the proportion of the notes. He that has a rectified palate knows what is good food, as soon as he tastes it, without the reasoning of a physician about it. There is a holy beauty and sweetness in words and actions, as well as a natural beauty in countenances and sounds, and sweetness in food: Job 12:11, “Doth not the ear try words, and the mouth taste his meat?” When a holy and amiable action is suggested to the thoughts of a holy soul, that soul, if in the lively exercise of its spiritual taste, at once sees a beauty in it, and so inclines to it, and closes with it. On the contrary, if an unworthy, unholy action be suggested to it, its sanctified eye sees no beauty in it, and is not pleased with it; its sanctified taste relishes no sweetness in it, but on the contrary, it is nauseous to it. Yea, its holy taste and appetite leads it to think of that which is truly lovely, and naturally suggests it; as a healthy taste and appetite naturally suggests the idea of its proper object. Thus a holy person is led by the Spirit, as he is instructed and led by his holy taste and disposition of heart; whereby, in the lively exercise of grace, he easily distinguishes good and evil, and knows at once what is a suitable amiable behavior towards God, and towards man, in this case and the other, and Judges what is right, as it were spontaneously, and of himself, without a particular deduction, by any other arguments than the beauty that is seen, and goodness that is tasted. Thus Christ blames the Pharisees, that they “did not, even of their own selves, judge what was right,” without needing miracles to prove it, Luke 12:57. The apostle seems plainly to have respect to this way of judging of spiritual beauty, in Rom. 12:2: “Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and perfect, and acceptable will of God.”
