Rhema vs Logos

The apostle Paul, speaking of the whole armor of God, admonishes the

saints to "put on…the sword of the Spirit, WHICH IS THE WORD OF GOD"

(Eph. 6:17). Then the writer to the Hebrews declares that the sword of

God’s word is "QUICK." Quick means living and active — LIFE-GIVING!



"For the word of God that speaks is alive and full of power — making it

active, operative, energizing and effective; it is sharper than any

two-edged sword" (Heb. 4:12, Amplified).



"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing…for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life!" (Jn. 6:63; II Cor. 3:6).

The sword of the Spirit is the quickening, energizing, life-giving WORD OF GOD! I shall not hesitate to explain to you, that there are two aspects of the word of God. Jesus Christ is the Word — the Logos —



THE LIVING, CREATIVE WORD! But there is also that word which Paul calls "the letter." The letter is the outer hull, the record and history, the laws
and commandments, the rules and regulations, the types, shadows and
figures, the external ordinances, rituals, ceremonies, and feasts; the
visible form of the word which tells us, in terms understandable by the
natural mind, many things about the Living Word, Jesus Christ.

It should be clear to any thinking mind that the law given by Moses was a word from God.

Many, many scriptures confirm that it was the very Lord Himself who spoke to Moses giving him the laws, commandments, judgments, and ordinances. Therefore it is called "the law of the Lord." Yet Paul, in speaking of this word from God, calls it "the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones." Then he further designates it "the ministration of condemnation." You, see, the law could only condemn! The only way the law could give life was if one perfectly kept it, but for every broken law there was a penalty. And no one was ever able to keep it! "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."

Therefore the law with all of its commandments, ceremonies, rituals, sacrifices, and observances is a dead word, it is form without essence, law without life, shadow without substance, chaff without kernel, it is the letter that killeth! It is "a word" about "The Word" and therefore shuts men up unto the dominion of death.

It should not be difficult to understand that as Jesus Christ is the Living Word of God, the sword of the Spirit that quickens, so is the Letter of the Word a deadly sword, killing rather than quickening. Ah, two words and two swords! The flaming sword of the Cherubim is the word of the law which is a ministration of condemnation and death. It keeps men out of Eden, away from the tree of life! But the sword out of the mouth of God’s Christ is a living sword that excellent in glory as the ministration of Life!

 

I am very familiar with this concept from Gothard. I spent 6 years working for his ministry in the 90s and then 7 years writing extensively on a forum composed of former and current ATI members. So, I have quite a bit already written about this topic. I will copy over relevant stuff I have already written with editing that will (hopefully) make it useful and understandable here. I apologize in advance if I miss some needful editing and clarity is lost.

First of all, here is what Bill Gothard has to say on the subject.

 

The first key in the discussion is to realize that 'logos' and 'rhema' are synomous - there may be slight shades of meanings, but still, they are synomous. Any claims that "rhema" means specifically something and "logos" has its own specific and distinct meaning are not supported by an actual study of Scripture.

However, the ideas used by some to define "logos" and "rhema" are important distinctions. One person can read the Scripture and it is alive and real to them, applicable in some way to every aspect of life. Another person can read the same Scripture and it is merely nice sounding words. This is a useful and important distinction which I do not wish to minimize.

However, this distinction CANNOT be supported by the Scriptural uses of "logos" and "rhema". In fact, most any attempt to do so will lead down the path of error in thinking and practice (Word-faith doctrines being the most prominent example - Gothard's use of Scripture being a 'milder' example).

In circles that insist on the rhema/logos distinction, the most common error associated with 'rhema' teachings is that people have a tendency to ignore or downplay what a passage is actually trying to communicate. Instead, there becomes an emphasis on some mystical searching for the 'true' or 'deeper' meaning/application of the passage. This practice is a sure means of eisegesis (reading meaning into Scripture) becoming commonplace practice.

Our goal though should be that of exigesis (reading meaning from out of Scripture). The word of God has sufficient meaning for any Christian. Not some hidden secret meaning which must be 'rhemaed' out. The plain meaning of Scripture, properly understood, accepted, believed and practiced is more than sufficient to provide direction and life to the Christian walk.

Its not that I reject looking for 'special meaning' in what I read in Scripture - its that I believe that the plain meaning of Scripture is more than sufficiently special for anyone. Just believe its truth and let it transform your life.

 

I very key claim for those who hold the rhema/logos distinction is that the Greek language is "highly precise language" - that a word in Greek has one particular meaning and thats it. Thus, they reason, when rhema is used, one particular meaning is meant, but when logos is used another particular meaning is meant. These meanings are always consistent and always distinct from each other. They may have some surface relationship, but thats it.

This is a misconception (I once traced down where they likely derived this idea from but have unfortunately lost track of that research). No language is that precise. There are very few words in ANY language which have precise, singular meanings. Greek is no exception. Pull up any definition of logos you can find and you will see that is most definitely does NOT have a precise meaning. Its meaning is very broad and can be used in many different ways. Thus, context is key in Biblical interpretation - not precise meanings of words.

It would be more accurate to say that, in comparison with many languages, koine greek was a precise language.


So why then, the r/l defender asks, are the two words used? Well, the simple answer is because they are synonyms. If they can be used interchangeably, why wouldn't they be used? At the same time, like any synonyms, they can hold different shades of meaning as well. So in some contexts, rhema works better, in others, logos, but in most cases both would work just fine. Thats what it means for words to be synonyms.

 

This part is part of an exchange between me and someone I will refer to as "J". He is trying to show rhema and logos to be distinct and I am responding:
_____________________________________________________

J: I want to say first, that the truth of the rhemati (plural in Greek) in Scripture is one of the most important things in Scripture to me- in the whole Christian life. I believe that without a rhema, you CANNOT have faith, direction, victory, and your spiritual life cannot be upheld.

Me: Yet interestingly enough, Christians can have 100-fold fruit on the logos alone:

Matt 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word (logos), and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.


J: In essence, let me prove my point from the Scripture: what is a rhema? If you look in Scripture and study it in the Greek, you will see that it is a: "specific word for a specific situation."

1.In the Gospels, Peter was told by the Lord Jesus a rhema that he would deny Him. Later, when he heard the cock crow, what does it say? "he recalled the word (rhema in Greek) that Jesus had spoken to him..." and he went out and wept bitterly. That is a specific word for a specific situation- a rhema for Peter. WHY does not Scripture substitute "logos" here, instead of "rhema"? Because logos (the general word for "word") is not specific enough. This is a rhema- it's specific.

Me: Then why do we find this in DIRECT contradiction to your claims:
"Luke 22:61 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."

J: 2. Recall also the passage in the Gospels about when the disciples were on the boat fishing. They had fished all night and had not found a thing. Remember what Jesus said to them? He said: "cast on the right side, and you shall find." It's beautiful. Remember the response of the disciple? "Lord, we have labored all night and have found nothing. Nevertheless, at thy word (rhema, not logos in Greek), we will cast." Then they cast, and found more fish in their net then they ever would. Again, WHY does not Scripture substitute "logos" here, instead of "rhema"? Because logos is not specific enough. This is a rhema- it is specific.

Me: Then why do we find several verses in which "logos" is used to refer clearly to a "specific word for a specific situation":

"Mt 8:8 The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word (logos) only, and my servant shall be healed."

"Mt 8:16 When the even was come, they brought unto him many that were possessed with devils: and he cast out the spirits with his word (logos), and healed all that were sick"

"Mark 7:28 And she answered and said unto him, Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.
29 And he said unto her, For this saying (logos) go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter."

"Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
29 And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying (logos), and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be."

"Lu 7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word (logos), and my servant shall be healed."

"Joh 4:50 Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word (logos) that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way."

And the one which totally destroys your premise - the one that could not be any more clearly a "specific word for a specific situation" yet is still called "logos":

Mark 10:21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me. 22 And he was sad at that saying (LOGOS), and went away grieved: for he had great possessions."

J: 3.Here is another example: Peter was sent to Cornelius to give the words of God to Him. And in the Greek, those words are not "logos", but "rhema". That's how people get saved. When they hear the direct and specific rhemas of God. Acts 11:14 says that Cornelius had been told by the angel to send to Joppa for Simon, "who shall tell thee words (rhemati), whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." Again, why didn't the Holy Spirit inspire the Word here with the Greek word "logos" for words? Because it is not specific enough for a specific situation. He instead used the "rhemati".


The "rhema" is how people get saved!!!?? Here are just a few examples illustrating that the "logos" is that which saves (or maybe it just proves they are synonyms?):

"Joh 4:41 And many more believed because of his own word (logos)

Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word (logos), and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word (logos) abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

Joh 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word (logos), then are ye my disciples indeed;

Joh 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying (logos), he shall never see death.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words (logos): and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. "

And while I am at it, here are some passages from Acts describing how the "logos" brought salvation:

"Ac 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word (logos) were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Ac 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word (logos) were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
32 And they spake unto him the word (logos) of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.
33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. "

And also, it was the "logos" which killed Ananias:

"Ac 5:5 And Ananias hearing these words (logos) fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. "

It was also the "logos" which brought on the filling of the HS:

"Ac 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words (logos), the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. "

J: Hebrews 1:3 also talks about the importance of a rhema: as the author of the book expounds about the importance of Christ in the history of the world, he remarks about Christ; "...upholding all things by the word of his power." Word here is rhema in Greek, again. Not logos.

Me: But then 2 Peter 3:5 uses "logos" to identify the same creative act: "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word (logos) of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"

J: May this speak to whoever may hear it: John 8:47 "He that is of God heareth God's words (rhemati); ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."


Me: Interesting considering a few verses earlier we find this:
John 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word (logos).

I affirm again that "logos" and "rhema" are synonyms. Any teaching which tries to make such a marked distinction between them is twisting Scripture. Search it out for yourself without preconceived notions.

 

Some more verses where, if Gothard's claims are correct, we would expect to find "rhema" being used but we instead find "logos":

Rom 9:9 For this is the word (logos) of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

1co 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word (logos) of wisdom; to another the word (logos) of knowledge by the same Spirit

1th 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word (logos) of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word (logos) of men, but as it is in truth, the word (logos) of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

1ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words (logos) of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.

Heb 4:12 For the word (logos) 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.

 

Wishing to look at the verses about Peter again. The following two verses are often used to support the idea of rhema being a distinct from logos:

Matthew 26:75
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.

Mark 14:72
And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word (rhema) that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.


Both of the above verses definitely use 'rhema' in reference to a "specific word for a specific situation" - no question there. However we find this verse as well:

Luke 22:61 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. 62 And Peter went out, and wept bitterly.

Now, as far as I can tell, this verse is essentially identical to the previous two verse. In fact, if one had not looked at the greek, they would probably have no reason to suspect that the word for "word" was different here. Yet according to Gothard, since "logos" has been substituted for "rhema" in this last passage we would expect there to be an essentially different meaning/message between the first 2 verses and the one in Luke.

If there is not an essentially different meaning/message between the verses, then as far as I can figure, Gothard's argument falls apart.

 

Hopefully this works on everyone's screen...

Here is a general diagram of how the meanings of 'logos' and 'rhema' relate...

The possible usages of rhema
|__________________|
A |_______B________|______________C_____________________|
The possible usages of logos

C is the usages/senses which 'logos' has that 'rhema' does not
A is the usages/senses which 'rhema' has that 'logos' does not.
B is the usages/senses in which 'logos' and 'rhema' are synonomous

Notice three things about the relationship between the meanings:
a) Logos has more possible meanings/usages than Rhema
b) There is a 'shade of meaning' which Rhema may hold that Logos does not.
c) Most usages of Rhema may be met equally well by using Logos.

This is why we call them synonyms. Synonyms may hold slightly different shades of meaning and one word may have considerably more usages than the other, but, for all intents and purposes, the words can be used identically in many contexts. This is the case with "logos" and "rhema" in their usage in Scripture. "Rhema" can be used in a specific way that "logos" is not, but
a) the shade of difference is very slight
b) to claim that rhema will always hold this shade of meaning is false
c) even this shade of meaning has been shown to be archaic at the time of the writing of Scripture. IOW, the difference pointed out by Vines is accurate, but only typical in Classical Greek, but not Koine Greek. Vine's research was done before several discoverys made by Greek scholars in the mid-20th century (interestingly enough, this is also true of the 'difference' between the words for 'love' - ie. agape, philos, etc. - these difference existed in Classical Greek but by the time of Christ they had largely disappeared and the words could be used synonomously)

So, the claim that "rhema" means 'a specific word for a specific situation' and "logos" cannot is false on several counts.
1) It goes beyond the mere shade of meaning which rhema does hold and creates a specifically different meaning which was never the case (Classical or Koine Greek).

2) It implies a specificity of meaning which never existed for 'rhema' or 'logos'. While 'rhema' can hold a shade of meaning which logos does not, it by no means necessarily will. This is why context is key in determining the usage of words. To claim that 'rhema' will always hold this shade of meaning is inaccurate and can be disproven by a study of its usage in Scripture.

3) To use Vines to support this consitent usage of the shade of meaning present in rhema is to ignore the fact that, by the time of Christ, this shade of meaning had largely disappeared. Choice of using 'logos' vs. 'rhema' and vice versa was based more on style of it usage rather than real differences of meaning in the two words.

However, if anyone disagrees, then to prove your unique claims for 'rhema' you must be able to do two things:
1) Show that current research of Koine Greek supports your definition.
2) And, since your claims center around the fact that "logos" can never be used to mean the same thing as "rhema", you must be able to show "logos" is never used in Scripture in the same way as "rhema". I have pointed out several verses where this seems to be the case so those are a good place to start.

 

Can rhema mean "a spoken word 'direct' from God"? Yes. Does it always mean this? No, here are some examples:
Mat 5:11 Blessed are ye, when [men] shall revile you, and persecute [you], and shall say all manner of evil (rhema) against you falsely, for my sake.

Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

In addition, logos can also take on the meaning "a spoken word 'direct' from God":
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word (logos), and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Rom 9:9 For this is the word (logos) of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

Lu 7:7 Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word (logos), and my servant shall be healed.

Thus, to see rhema as special or distinct from logos isn't supported by Scripture.

Gothard has a penchant for giving unique definitions to words in order to further his (heterodoxical) theology. His definition of grace is the worst, but his misuse of rhema is a close second.

The logos is also life:
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word (logos), and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Joh 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying (logos), he shall never see death.

The logos is also spirit:
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word (logos) abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words (logos): and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.