# Logos and Rhema (Pastors and Greek students)



## D. Paul (May 7, 2010)

Friends, I posted a Q on this a long time ago. The issue has resurfaced and now I find previous answers unsatisfactory.

The NT uses both words. Certain preachers claim Logos to be the word written or spoken to us and Rhema to mean words that are "quickened" in our spirits by the Holy Spirit. In other words, we can read the words on the page but need that they "come alive" for us. I find this simply silly, but then the Q: Why the use of the two words if they intend to mean the same?


----------



## Wannabee (May 7, 2010)

I'll give a quick answer now, hopefully good enough. It's been a little while, but here's what I remember.

logos = equals the Word, including Christ. The Word of God is living, powerful, etc.

rhema = the wielding of what the Word equips us with. This is why the sword of the Spirit is the rhema of God. When we speak truth into the loves of others we are wielding the rhema. Perhaps a simplified way of saying it would be that the rhema is the ministering of the logos. That nuance might be a little off, but hopefully helps you think along the lines of the difference. Those with better understanding of Greek can straighten it out if I'm off a bit.

Blessings,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 8, 2010)

D. Paul said:


> Friends, I posted a Q on this a long time ago. The issue has resurfaced and now I find previous answers unsatisfactory.
> 
> The NT uses both words. Certain preachers claim Logos to be the word written or spoken to us and Rhema to mean words that are "quickened" in our spirits by the Holy Spirit. In other words, we can read the words on the page but need that they "come alive" for us. I find this simply silly, but then the Q: Why the use of the two words if they intend to mean the same?


 
The logos is dead without the spirit. They mean two different things. Just my humble opinion BTW, Logos is also used in the name of our LORD Jehovah. Read John 1:1-14. They are closely associated. Separate them and you have death. 



> (1Co 2:9) But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
> 
> (1Co 2:10) But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
> 
> ...



The written law exposes. Can you come to right conclusions outside of the Spirit that wrote this word outside of his understanding? NO! You need a quickening. Define quickening. Because that is another debate. The law without the spirit kills. Ask Adam after his sinful rebellion. Logos is a greek word. Are you suggesting that this goes beyond it? God defines words and their meaning.

Also look at Hebrews chapter 4 intently and in context. 



> (Heb 4:12) For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
> 
> (Heb 4:13) Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.




edited because greek font doesn't show up. Both words are used here.


----------



## Prufrock (May 8, 2010)

*In general* the words have a different domain, but by figure of speech they often overlap or are used for the other: ῥῆμα *basically* refers to a physical vocabulary unit -- a word or a phrase. Λόγος refers to that which is constructed from the former -- an account, a record, a reckoning, speech, discourse, reasoning, etc. The latter is composed of the former and more perfect than the former. This may not be as "theologically charged" a description as you were looking for, but hopefully it will help you see the difference in shades of meaning when they are used.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 8, 2010)

Λογος and ρημα are virtual synonyms. Λογος has a much wider semantic range, meaning it can occur in more contexts. Both words have multiple meanings, but they overlap in that each can refer to a statement or to an event. If you would like to pursue the matter further, I would suggest looking at a standard Greek lexicon such as BDAG or Louw-Nida.


----------



## D. Paul (May 8, 2010)

OK, so then the distinction that "the word _becomes_ rhema" in some mystical sense, as though we experience an event, is indeed an invalid one, correct? That seems to be the point these preachers make, is that _rhema _ is another "level" in understanding and not just a synonymous term.


----------



## chbrooking (May 8, 2010)

Paul Korte's answer. I have nothing to add to it.


----------



## Wannabee (May 8, 2010)

To merely claim it as synonymous is too simplistic. There is a difference and it's used in Scripture accordingly. However, the mystical sense in which you say some describe it is likely reading too much into it. Perhaps Paul's description is a bit more wooden and a less wooden effort to denote the difference would be that the written Word is the logos while when we speak truth according to the logos into each other's lives we are wielding the rhema (Eph 6:17 uses rhema for instance). Christ, the logos, wielded the rhema by quoting the logos and said man lives by every rhema that proceeds from the mouth of God. There is a subtle difference, as noted in TDNT. I'm not sure about copyright issues, so I'll just post this short section of the article here.


> 3. ῥῆμα.
> The root (ϝ)ερ— (ϝ)ρη only exceptionally in Gk. forms a present, though the other tenses are common: fut. ἐρέω ἐρῶ, aor. pass. ἐρρήθην, Ion εἰρέθην, Hell. ἐρρέθην, perf. εἴρηκα εἴρημαι. Thus the sense is clearly non-durative, “to state specifically.” Of the derivatives the same is true esp. of ῥήτρα (Aeolic ϝ ράτρα), “saying,” “treaty,” and the verbal adj. → ῥητός, “definitely stated,” “expressly laid down.” In related languages the verb is practically never found but the extension is ancient, e.g., Lat. verbum Old Prussian wirds, Lithuanian var̃das (“name”), German Wort. Eng. “word.” ῥῆμα, then, is what is definitely stated (at first usually in the plur.). Thus in solemn announcement, Archiloch. Fr., 52 (Diehl, I, 226): [ὦ] Λιπερνῆτες πολῖται, τἀμὰ δὴ ξυνίετε ῥήματ(α) (cf. Aristoph. Pax, 603: ὦ σοφώτατοι γεωργοί …), of military orders in the epigram of Simonides (Fr., 92 [Diehl, II, 94]) on the Spartans who fell at Thermopylae: τοῖς κείνων ῥήμασι πειθόμενοι, but with the weaker sense of “statements,” “words” already in Theog., 1152 == 1238b (Diehl, I, 174, 180): Do not change the friend δειλῶν ἀνθρώπων ῥήμασι πειθόμενος, Hdt., VIII, 83: τοῖσι δὲ Ἕλλησι ὡς πιστὰ δὴ τὰ λεγόμενα ἦν τῶν τηνίων ῥήματα, Pind. Nem., 4, 94: ῥήματα πλέκων. So also in the sing., Pind. Pyth., 4, 277 f.: Of a statement of Hom., Hdt.., VII, 162: ὁ νόος τοῦ ῥήματος, τὸ ἐθέλει λέγειν, Plat. Prot., 343b: τοῦ Πιττακοῦ, 342e: ῥῆμα ἄξιον λόγου βραχύ (pithy saying in contrast to long speeches, λόγοι). Words as distinct from deeds, Pind. Nem., 4, 6: ῥῆμα δʼ ἐργμάτων χρονιώ τερον βιοτεύει, Thuc., V, 111, 3: Men fall into misfortune because they submit to the ῥῆμα (previously ὄνομα ἐπαγωγόν, magically enticing word) of expected misfortune. Words as opposed to truth, Plat. Phaed., 102b: οὐχ, ὡς τοῖς ῥήμασι λέγεται, οὕτω καὶ τὸ ἀληθὲς ἔχειν; In Plato’s time grammatical and philosophical thought took over the word, at first with a fluid line of demarcation: Plat. Crat., 399b: ῥῆμα, syntactical connection as distinct from ὄνομα, material or personal connection (cf. Aeschin. Or., 3, 72: ῥῆμα, the wording of the whole saying, ὄνομα the offensive word in it), 431b: ὄνομα and ῥῆμα together form the sentence (λόγος), cf. 425a; Theaet., 206d: λόγος is the intimation of the thought μετὰ ῥημάτων τε καὶ ὀνομάτων, Soph., 262a: τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ ταῖς πράξεσιν ὂν δήλωμα (the rendering of acts in speech) ῥῆμά που λέγομεν … τὸ δέ γʼ ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἐκείνας πράττουσι σημεῖον τῆς φωνῆς ἐπιτεθὲν (the phonetic sign for the doers of the acts) ὄνομα, and this distinction between ῥῆμα (active word) and ὄνομα (personal and material designation) led to the grammatical use of ῥῆμα for verb and ὄνομα for noun (from Aristot. Poët., 20, p. 1457a, 11 ff.). Except in this special sense the word does not seem to have lived on in the postclass. period, Ditt. Syll.3, 1175, 5f., 18 f., 36f. (cursing tablet from c. 300 b.c.): ῥῆμα μοχθηρὸν ἢ πονηρὸν φθένγεσθαι, pap. only from the 3rd cent. a.d.
> 
> _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_, 4:75-76.



It does seem that both how Paul presented it and the "spoken word" aspect of the meaning are true, though the thrust seems different to me. Perhaps I'm missing something and perhaps there is more latitude in the word's use than I'm grasping. But TDNT seems to allow for a range of understanding that encompasses both while maintaining some distinction from logos. I would also encourage you to read Hoehner on Ephesians 6:17, if you have access to it.


----------



## Heidelberg1 (May 9, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The logos is dead without the spirit. They mean two different things. Just my humble opinion BTW, Logos is also used in the name of our LORD Jehovah. Read John 1:1-14. They are closely associated. Separate them and you have death.



I must respectfully disagree with you. What do you mean that the logos is dead without the Spirit? How can the logos be disassociated from the Spirit? How can God breathed words be dead? 

Hebrews 4:12-13 For the word [logos] of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. (13) And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

1 Peter 1:22-25 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart, (23) since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word [logos] of God; (24) for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls, (25) but the word [rhema] of the Lord remains forever." And this word [rhema] is the good news that was preached to you.

It would be more accurate to say that _we_ are dead without the Spirit. That is what 1 Corinthians 2 is talking about. There are two types of people mentioned in that passage. Those with the Spirit and those without.

Blessings,

[I did not mean to put the red face up. Oops]


----------

