Rhema-Logos Pop Teaching

[LinkH]

Rhema/Logos

I've heard Charismatic teachings on this that are popular with WOFers. I hear it may have started with Full Gospel Business Men. The idea is that 'logos' is the Bible, and that 'rhema' is a word God speaks to us individually. One version of it is that the words on the page are logos and that God can quicken a 'rhema' to our spirits. The idea is the 'rhema' either can come from the Bible, or always comes from the Bible.

I'd heard some people who studied Greek say this teaching doesn't line up with the meaning of the Greek words.

Many years ago, I got out a Strong's concordance and looked up the usage of the Greek words in the Bible. One could do this with Blue Letter Bible online these days. Sure enough, the pop Charismatic teaching on Rhema-Logos did not seem to hold up when looking at Biblical usage.

I am not saying the concept that the Spirit can quicken the word to us is invalid, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the use of Rhema and Logos in the New Testament scriptures.

And it would irk me to hear the occasional preacher be really down on 'logos' as if that is a bad thing or something to be looked down on, when the Bible calls Jesus the Logos of God.
The Logos has the light that lights every man that comes into the world, also. Doesn't that sound like more of an aspect of 'rhema' in the pop Charismatic teaching?

 

[1stcenturylady]

No one that I know disregards the Bible.

RHEMA (SPECIFIC, SPOKEN WORD)

“It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgment.

Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, “Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times.” And when he thought about it, he wept.

And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.” Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, you will ask what you desire, and it shall be done for you.

So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God

 

[com7fy8]

Strong's Greek dictionary word #4487 rhema - utterance

3056 logos - word or message

At a glance, it looks to me like rhema might have more to do with a word in its action of being transmitted, while logos can often refer to what has been transmitted and now is already at its destination.

So, if this is correct, then I suppose a rhema can mean a scripture which the Holy Spirit is bringing to mind, and it can mean something personal which God says, though it is not a scripture quote.

 

[paul1149]

the pop Charismatic teaching on Rhema-Logos did not seem to hold up when looking at Biblical usage.

I am not saying the concept that the Spirit can quicken the word to us is invalid, but I don't see how it has anything to do with the use of Rhema and Logos in the New Testament scriptures.

What you say has truth to it. I have found more problematic uses of the two words than I would like. And the short but helpful wiki article on Rhema says that it and Logos were used interchangeably in the Septuagint, several hundred years before the NT.

However, even Vine's Expository Dictionary draws a distinction between the two words, and I think - I haven't done a definitive study yet - that the two words do tend to have their specialized meanings when used in the NT. IOW, I think Vine's has a basis for drawing its distinction between the two words.

And as you seem to say, the dynamic of the spoken v. written word is a very valid and useful and Biblical concept. Taking all this together, I use the two words in their special senses without apology, but I do cringe when i see them used otherwise in the NT.

 

[1stcenturylady]

I use the two words in their special senses without apology, but I do cringe when i see them used otherwise in the NT.

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. Can you show specific verses?

 

[LinkH]

So, if this is correct, then I suppose a rhema can mean a scripture which the Holy Spirit is bringing to mind, and it can mean something personal which God says, though it is not a scripture quote.

I don't think a decent case can be made that that is what 'rhema' or 'logos' actually mean when they are used in the Bible. If that's the case, then the pop Charismatic teaching is just plain misleading. Why call it 'rhema' if that's not what 'rhema' means in the Greek in the Bible? It's also pretending to have some superior knowledge of the Greek (that isn't legit) to convince people that your theological point is true.

 

[LinkH]

Paul1149,

I used to be on a discussion list with a retired Greek professor (Classics Professor at a state university, actually.) If I remember right, he said the words overlapped in meaning a great deal, but there were some distinct aspects of each word.

But I don't think these differences in meaning between these two words are accurately reflected in the popular Charismatic teaching.

 

[paul1149]

Paul1149,
I used to be on a discussion list with a retired Greek professor (Classics Professor at a state university, actually.) If I remember right, he said the words overlapped in meaning a great deal, but there were some distinct aspects of each word.
But I don't think these differences in meaning between these two words are accurately reflected in the popular Charismatic teaching.

I had a NT prof who said about the same thing, and perhaps was even more egalitarian than that.

But I don't understand your second statement. AISI, any problem would be with the degree the two words have distinct loci of meaning, not about the validity of the spoken word / written word dichotomy itself. One may argue that there isn't enough distinctness between the two words to support their popular usage, but the question of distinctness ends up being one of degree.

Vine's has, in part:

[ 2,,G4487, rhema ]
denotes "that which is spoken, what is uttered in speech or writing;" in the singular, "a word," e.g., Matt 12:36; Matt 27:14; 2Cor 12:4; 2Cor 13:1; Heb 12:19; in the plural, speech, discourse, e.g., John 3:34; John 8:20; Acts 2:14; Acts 6:11,Acts 6:13; Acts 11:14; Acts 13:42; Acts 26:25; Rom 10:18; 2Pet 3:2; Jude 1:17; it is used of the Gospel in Rom 10:8 (twice), Rom 10:17, RV, "the word of Christ" (i.e., the "word" which preaches Christ); Rom 10:18; 1Pet 1:25 (twice); of a statement, command, instruction, e.g., Matt 26:75; Luke 1:37, RV, "(no) word (from God shall be void of power);" Luke 1:38; Acts 11:16; Heb 11:3.

The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos) is exemplified in the injunction to take "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God," Eph 6:17; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture.
​

BDB, Thayer's, Michelson, OBU, etc, seem to back this up quite strongly (click internal link on this page to expand Thayer's).

 

[com7fy8]

I suppose a rhema can mean a scripture which the Holy Spirit is bringing to mind, and it can mean something personal which God says, though it is not a scripture quote.

If that's the case, then the pop Charismatic teaching is just plain misleading.

I do not mean to speak for people I do not even know, and what it means for them. But I am sure that at times God communicates personally with us, and it is not always using a scripture quote.

For example, one time I was in a hotel and the fire alarm went off. I was told to drop my bible out the window wrapped in my coat and go out and check about the alarm. It was a real alarm.

Another time, I was told to put up my coat collar before going to church. That day only I was robbed with a blade held to my neck . . . against the collar, instead of against the skin on my neck.

These are practical examples of what I mean could be a rhema-word.

In any case, I mean any time the Holy Spirit brings words of understanding of what we read in the scripture. It is quiet and humble and pure in God's Spirit.

 

[1stcenturylady]

Paul1149,

I used to be on a discussion list with a retired Greek professor (Classics Professor at a state university, actually.) If I remember right, he said the words overlapped in meaning a great deal, but there were some distinct aspects of each word.

But I don't think these differences in meaning between these two words are accurately reflected in the popular Charismatic teaching.

You keep degrading "popular Charismatic teaching," but never once have you stated what the 'true' meanings are of logos and rhema. Please back up your statements.

 

[LinkH]

But I don't understand your second statement. AISI, any problem would be with the degree the two words have distinct loci of meaning, not about the validity of the spoken word / written word dichotomy itself. One may argue that there isn't enough distinctness between the two words to support their popular usage, but the question of distinctness ends up being one of degree.

I'm talking about the teaching that logos means the Bible, or the Bible unquickened to the heart of the reader, while a rhema means a word the Holy Spirit has quicken to the believer.

I also notice that the word of knowledge is logos, and so is the word of knowledge.

The significance of rhema (as distinct from logos) is exemplified in the injunction to take "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God," Eph 6:17; here the reference is not to the whole Bible as such, but to the individual scripture which the Spirit brings to our remembrance for use in time of need, a prerequisite being the regular storing of the mind with Scripture.​

​

Hebrews 4 says that the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any three edged sword. It uses the word 'logos.' It is not clear that Ephesians6:17 refers specifically to scriptures either, since the word of God was also an oral message that was preached. Is there any clear reference to 'the word of God' referring to the whole Bible?

 

[LinkH]

You keep degrading "popular Charismatic teaching," but never once have you stated what the 'true' meanings are of logos and rhema. Please back up your statements.

 

[LinkH]

You keep degrading "popular Charismatic teaching," but never once have you stated what the 'true' meanings are of logos and rhema. Please back up your statements.

There are Greek dictionaries you can look in for help on that one that we can all look up online. Paul has quoted from one of them. Can you show me some scriptures (or even other Greek literature) that back up this rhema-logos distinction that Greek professors and students disagree with?

 

[1stcenturylady]

There are Greek dictionaries you can look in for help on that one that we can all look up online. Paul has quoted from one of them. Can you show me some scriptures (or even other Greek literature) that back up this rhema-logos distinction that Greek professors and students disagree with?

I did in #2

 

[LinkH]

1st century lady,

Listing verses that use rhema doesn't show a contrast between logos and rhema, since logos is used to refer to the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, and the word of God which is quick (living) and powerful.

The idea of the logos being 'mere logos', unquickened, etc. doesn't show up in those passages either.

 

[1stcenturylady]

1st century lady,

Listing verses that use rhema doesn't show a contrast between logos and rhema, since logos is used to refer to the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, and the word of God which is quick (living) and powerful.

The idea of the logos being 'mere logos', unquickened, etc. doesn't show up in those passages either.

I have wondered why the word of wisdom and word of knowledge do not show rhema, because when you receive a word, it is literally spoken to you, the same as any rhema. Personally, I think because many of the gifts were not known about experientially when the Word of God was being translated back and forth between Greek, then Latin, then back to Greek, it could have been mistranslated. But that is just a way-out theory of my own I've wondered about.

 

[paul1149]

logos is used to refer to the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge, and the word of God which is quick (living) and powerful.

These are the examples that I can't explain at this point. Obviously the distinction between the two words is not hard and fast. But the authorities maintain that it tends to exist.

@1stcenturylady, sorry for not getting back to you. It's been rough here lately. These are the examples I would have come up with.

 

[1stcenturylady]

These are the examples that I can't explain at this point. Obviously the distinction between the two words is not hard and fast. But the authorities maintain that it tends to exist.

@1stcenturylady, sorry for not getting back to you. It's been rough here lately. These are the examples I would have come up with.

I have a wild theory in the post just before yours to me.

 

[paul1149]

I have a wild theory in the post just before yours to me.

One resource that might provide insight is the TDNT. My copy is incomplete, and doesn't include either word. But the resource traces the usage of words in the Septuagint, Attic Greek, the NT, and secular Greek in NT times, so you can see how usage evolved.

 

[LinkH]

I have wondered why the word of wisdom and word of knowledge do not show rhema, because when you receive a word, it is literally spoken to you, the same as any rhema. Personally, I think because many of the gifts were not known about experientially when the Word of God was being translated back and forth between Greek, then Latin, then back to Greek, it could have been mistranslated. But that is just a way-out theory of my own I've wondered about.

Paul wrote it in Greek and he wrote 'logos' (or the approriate grammatical form thereof) and not 'rhema' so translation is not an issue.

I think a better explanation is that the Charismatics who came up with this teaching didn't really know Greek. Someone suggested it started with FGBMI.