Now, Jesus does not often use the term rhema. I find only three occasions outside of John’s Gospel, and eight more within. By way of comparison, the logon by which He described those words of His that achieved our pruning, is spoken by Him twenty one times in Matthew’s Gospel alone. I have heard a few different explanations as to how to understand the shadings of these two terms, but I think it’s worthwhile to take a few moments looking at how Jesus in particular applies the less common rhema, and see if it is possible to come away from that with an idea of His intent.

So, then, a record of those few occasions upon which Jesus uses the term: “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God’” (Mt 4:4). This, I should note, quotes Deuteronomy 4:4: “He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord.” Continuing: “I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall given an accounting for it in the day of judgment” (Mt 12:36). “If he does not listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed” (Mt 18:16). “If you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words” (Jn 5:47)? “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life” (Jn 6:63). “He who is of God hears the words of God. You do not hear them because you are not of God” (Jn 8:47). “If anyone hears My sayings, and does not keep them, I do not judge him. For, I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects Me, and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day” (Jn 12:47-48). Note that the ‘word I spoke’ is logos, not rhema. “The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works” (Jn 14:10). “If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish and it shall be done for you” (Jn 15:7). “The words You gave Me I have given them, and they received them, truly understanding that I came from You. They believed that You sent Me” (Jn 17:8).

What, if anything, can I conclude from this short list? I’m not certain I can conclude much at all. I could say that I find absolutely no evidence for that understanding which was taught me, that the rhema word was that word specifically fitted to the moment. This is an understanding particular to the Charismatic perspective, I believe. Thus, that which is construed as a word of knowledge is deemed a rhema word. Oddly, there appears to be very little significant thought around the logos word in that corner of the faith.

That said, I also see little in this list to support the view that the rhema word is that which imparts a command or a commission, as Thayer chooses to denominate the term. Vine offers up the distinction that logos refers to the whole of discourse where rhema indicates a specific. That author puts forward the passage about the word being a two-edged sword as an example. We could also, I suppose elicit this idea from that passage in John 12:47-48. He does not receive My sayings (rhema). He is judged by the word (logos) I spoke. OK. Let me crack a new tome, and have a look at what Kittel has to say on the subject of these two words. (Perhaps this is going to turn into a bit of a word study after all!) So, beware that the next few paragraphs are likely to be more in keeping with my preparatory style than with my exploratory form.

Considering first the term logos: This comes from the root of lego, with a fundamental meaning of ‘to gather’. Thus, to collect things that are alike, and an occasional linkage to the idea of counting those things thus collected, or enumerating them. This follows on to the idea of narrating, enumerating the collected memories of the events around a particular occasion. Finally, the term takes on the meaning of speaking in general. But this has all been a course of historical development in the meaning of the term. The development of logos follows this same arc, moving from collection to reckoning and calculation, evaluation, and so on; then to reflection and cataloging, onward to narration, and finally to speech in general. The formal definition of logos is given as the uttering of thought in speech. Turning to the term rhema, the meaning tends to come across more as “to state specifically,” or definitely. To ‘expressly lay down’. In this sense, it has been used to indicate solemn announcements, military orders, or particularly pithy sayings. Now, this is interesting. Leaning on some classical Greek source, there is this sense of meaning offered, which I shall quote more or less directly: “Men fall into misfortune because they submit to the rhema, ([…] the magically enticing word) of expected misfortune.” Here, the intent is given as the words being a different matter than the truth, and quite probably opposed thereunto. Under Platonic thought, rhema began to take on the sense of the active word, the verbal activity of speaking where other terms took upon them the aspect of the noun. There follows some material on lalia which I am not interested in at this juncture.

Thus, we return to considering logos as it was used in the Hellenistic period, or that timeframe in which Greek thought was more concerned with rationalization in thought and philosophy. Logos begins with the recounting of actual events, as distinct from mythos, which is the more poetic or inventive narrative associated with religious writings. Logos addresses the material world, real events, real people. [That is particularly interesting, in considering that Jesus is denominated the Logos.] The term also picks up the sense of rational thought, man’s ability to reason and to express that which reason has revealed. In terms of philosophy, logos presents one with the wealth of relations in thought which, despite a necessary ambiguity still retain an ‘ultimate unity’. One might say (and here I am purely in my own words) that logos presents us with the point that Truth must hold together. It must be noted, though, that in a purely Greek usage, logos never represents a word of creative power, such as we see portrayed in Scripture. It can be used of commands, or of oracles, or simply philosophical dialogue. The connecting thread is that it is rational. Here, there is a comment that rhema would have been used for the more emotional expressions, or the expression of the will. Logos is more explanatory, relating Truth rather than feeling or determination. It is again noted with interest that the Scriptures utilize logos rather than rhema to describe the creative Word of God, and also for the revelatory word of God. [I need to note that point!] The meaning of rhema is, “obviously too narrow. Instead, they have the more profound and comprehensive logos.” It is further noted that the two terms are less distinct in meaning as used in Scripture than in Greek philosophical usage.

In Greek, the term logos has, from ancient times, had a dual usage. On the one hand, it is used for that power of rational thought which may be expressed in words or by other means. On the other, it is a view of reality in philosophy and particularly in theology, whereby the term eventually arrives at becoming a conception of deity. In this sense, it is an inherently Greek perspective that insists there must be an underlying intelligence to existence, that knowledge and understanding would otherwise be impossible. The logos, then, is the norm by which true life and conduct is to be determined. Heraclitus builds on this point to make of logos the connection between man and cosmos, the bridge making understanding possible. It is in his development of the matter that logos begins to indicate more than just the words that relay the information, encompassing also the meaning those words relay, the truth itself, for it is the Truth which has eternal validity, and all which takes place must take place in light of that Truth. Logos is made the transcendent order which binds individual to the whole, the cosmic law. Under the Sophists, logos comes to represent the rational power in man, his power to persuade and direct as much as to think. The Stoics alone preserve the transcendent power of logos in this period. Socrates and Plato build upon this, arriving at a deeper sense of the logos, as that by which fellowship is made possible, and by which agreement between men is also made possible Thus, it becomes ‘the basic fact in all life in society’. To hate the word, the logos, is thereby made equal to hating man in general. The power of logos in the thinking of these men may be seen in their use of dialog as a means of arriving at wisdom. Dialogos, discussions with the soul, interpreting observation by means of Rationality. Logos “expresses what is as it is”, making understanding possible. Aristotle retains the dual sense of logos in man as both expressing how understanding determines action, and how speech relays what is understood.

The Stoics disallow the speech-related aspects raised by Socratic philosophy, linking logos solely with the cosmic law of reason. Through this, logos came to be equated with Zeus, coming to represent the creative principle which brings the world into being. In this sense, “the world is a grand unfolding of the logos.” In this thinking, all power proceeds from the logos, and all must return hence. “In the Stoic logos the rational power of order and the vital power of conception are merged in one.” Neo-platonic thought expands logos in a slightly different direction, finding it a power that permeates all that is, and thus everything is logos, if in differing degrees of purity. The various mystery religions raise logos to indicate the mystery doctrines, the particular revelations of sacred history. Logos then becomes ‘the only worthy way to enter into relation with God,’ an equivalent thought to that of prayer, and genuine prayer must be offered through the logos if it so truly honor God. Hermes comes to be seen as the embodiment of logos in the form of a god. Others in that pantheon were also associated with logos, although none in an incarnation, only as a sort of identifying concept with said gods. Hermes, as things developed, came to be viewed as the mediator of logos, as well as the power of conception and creation. Logos becomes ‘a cosmic and creative potency’, a force of nature, where it had once been the very thing that transcended nature. Under this Hermetic theology, logos comes forth from God, is the son of God, bringing order and form to the world. Yet, it remains an intermediary, not the supreme deity. This same theology arrives at a sort of trinity in the conception of God, with the cosmos as third party.

Philo brings the concept of logos into the realm of Jewish religion, drawing a connection between that term and the “Word of God”. But, then, Philo is primarily attempting to draw Jewish religion and Greek philosophy together. In his work, we cannot see logos as representing God Himself, but sort of a second rank god, an image or icon of God. Logos is a mediator between God and man, serving as high-priest and advocate on behalf of man. It is simultaneously the creative power of God, fashioning the visible world and maintaining its order.

It must be noted that all of this development of logos in Greek theology remains distinctly different from that Logos we find in the NT. The Christian development of the term focuses on that logos which is of God. What man says or thinks is of no intrinsic value, only what God says. Greek thought does not take such a view. The Greek, by logos, seeks to master the world by his spirit, i.e. logos is controlled by the ratio of man, a direction directly opposed to the sequence of power depicted in Scripture. The Greek logos reveals what is essentially an inner law to perception. The Christian logos reveals a transcendent, higher Law. Perhaps more critical a distinction lies in the fact that Christianity speaks of an historical, and historically unique Logos. Greek philosophy, by contrast, has myriad logoi releasing creative forces throughout the cycle of time, a metaphysical continuum, if you will. The Greek logos became the world. The Christian Logos became an historically unique Man. Unique in its concepts, the Christian usage of logos yet provided a point of contact for Christianity with a world soaked in Greek philosophy.

Hebrew usage of similar terms yields the idea that the word, the logos is ever the meaning of the thing, that which is behind what was spoken or written. Ergo, to grasp the word is to grasp the thing itself. The word also has power, in that it impacts both the person hearing it and receiving it, and history itself, quite apart from whether it was properly received. This idea of word as a material force, ever present and always at work, is a distinctly Hebrew concept, perhaps ported into the Stoic viewpoint via Zeno. This force even has the power to make alive. The primary concept to be captured in the Greek translations of the OT, where either logos or rhema is used, is that of Truth. This connection is firmly established by the text itself. “In every spoken word there should be a relation of truth between word and thing, and a relation of fidelity between the one who speaks and the one who hears.” The word is a moral consideration. “The power of God finds recognizable expression in the logos.” One notes that the OT prophetic function is more often distinguished less more by sign and word (the verbal, and its visible expression) than by ecstatic outbursts. Thus, the prophet is more seer than ecstatic. Over time, we see prophecy largely divorced from sign, and more a pure expression of revelation in word. “The seen word is the divine word of revelation which is embodied in vision and audition.” “The relation of the Word of God to the dream of a prophet is like that of the wheat to the straw. It may be clothed in a vision, but it is independent of it.” It can be delivered only by one who has been seized and broken by it. “Every prophetic word is an effectual force.” This point culminates in the living, eternal Word of God. “He who is smitten by the Word, so that he receives it into himself and is orientated thereto, has become a new man.” The word bears within itself the power to perform. This applied, in particular to the word of the Law. It must be both proclaimed and received in order to be effective in the individual. In this direction lies the call for preaching. Over time, the legal and the prophetic word have been merged into a single whole conception: The Word of God. This Word includes in itself also the power of creation, thus allowing a revelation of God in nature. [Note the connection of God’s work in creation with His word in creation – reminiscent of that comment Jesus made in the last chapter: I don’t speak My own words, but the Father does His work in Me.] This association of word and creation also influences the perspective on poetry as being a revelation effected by the Word. Word “comprehends both promise and demand,” both the prophetic and the legal. In the word is power deserving of trust and hope.

The NT places strong emphasis on hearing, with the necessity of there being something to hear. The logos term is therefore highly significant. It should be understood, though, that not every use of the term is to be granted the same significance, as it is used in all its various meanings. The emphasis remains on saying something, however the term may be used specifically. What is said may be true or false, cause for praise or for condemnation, of humanly sinful origin or of heavenly, yet it remains a thing said, thought, written; at any rate, expressed. “It can embrace any content put in words.” Even in its most significant uses, such as John’s prologue, the primary sense of spoken word is not removed, nor less to be emphasized. Thus, the word of revelation has value precisely because of Who it is who speaks. In the sense of giving account, the term has a rather specific meaning to the Christian, as pointing out the need to provide such report of one’s being to both men and to God. It thus embodies a sense of judgment and responsibility, moral culpability. In this guise, the account of one’s support for the church takes on spiritual aspects of accounting as well. It is a fruitful evidence of God’s inward working. Logos also finds use in the sense of reasoning, rational deliberations, although in a rather weaker sense than would be common to Greek thought. As representing the subject under discussion, NT usage also follows Greek. When referring to the specific teachings or sayings of Jesus, it seems that the writers make no particular distinction between logos and rhema. Neither can one establish a sense that one indicates the body of sayings and the other a specific subset. Both terms find use in both applications. In Jesus, Word and Work are not distinct manifestations, but rather His Word is active, working, powerful in its own right. Note how often His Word alone, without any physical act associated, accomplishes the intended result, whether miraculous healings or exorcisms. The fact that so many of Jesus’ sayings are kept in the Aramaic even in these Greek accounts is not some hint that they were viewed as magic formulas, but rather they were preserved in His original language as a stamp of their authenticity. Thus, when we read of healings performed in the name of Jesus, we must not suppose that the healing occurred simply because somebody appended that phrase to their own words. “Primitive Christianity observed with sure and unerring instinct the boundary between the superstition of magic formulae on the one side, and the account of the exousia of Jesus, and awareness of its present efficacy in His name, no the other.” Both the power of faith and the power of rejection are contained in His words. [Both acceptance and rejection hinge on His intent.] The value given Jesus’ words is assigned precisely because they are therefore the words of God.

OK. This article apparently continues forever, and never actually arrives at discussing rhema in any particular, for it is almost wholly focused on logos. Under the circumstances, I think I shall leave off from this exercise. There have been many intriguing observations made on the subject of the Logos, but that was not my primary interest in considering the topic. Perhaps the single most telling point, so far as concerns my original line of inquiry, is the observation that these two terms logos and rhema, in reference to what Jesus has said, are used in so nearly a synonymous fashion as to be construed as being thus synonymous. I should take from that the supposition that if it is true of references to what He has said, it is likewise true of the content of what He said. I need not seek for further deep significance to the particular choice of word here.