@GratefulDisciple The graphe contains the rhema of the logos. It is the instrument that we have been given. The graphe is not the logos but it is a primary access point and the solitary protection of the rhema by which the manifestation of logos is preserved.

@GratefulDisciple Thank you. This is a massive topic. The question ends up being, "Did canonization add anything to the scriptures or was it merely a formalized recognition of the inspiration that was already there?". Another way of putting it is, "Did the church write the Bible or does it merely recognize the writing of God?". I think it can be argued that the word is living and active because of its verbal inspiration, because it is breathed out by God and, as such, it might not be all that passive.

@GratefulDisciple If there are people saying that it is the text itself, that is to say the text alone and nothing but the text, I sure hope that they are misspeaking or being misunderstood. The word being likened to food so often in scripture is very apt. A piece of fruit lying on a table does so passively but the moment I pick it up and eat it all of its potential energy is kineticized such that it is neither just the fruit or just my chewing and swallowing but the combination of the two that is profitable. I can't eat just anything and the fruit does me no good if I don't eat it.

@GratefulDisciple There's a distinction to be made between graphe, rhema, and logos but there is also a vital connection that has to be maintained. I suspect that the exegesis you've heard that's bothering you is losing sight of either the distinction or the connection or both. I consider myself Evangelical and I don't support that particular exegesis myself

It is true that as John says Jesus is The Logos. However I would caution against making so much about distinctions between these two Greek words as if they always mean exactly these two things. For example Matthew 5:37 uses logos for the disciples’ speech—it’s not referring to Jesus in that verse. So while you’re right that Jesus is The Logos, your answer would be improved by clarifying that yours is more of a theological answer than a linguistic one because linguistically there isn’t such a razor sharp distinction between those Greek words as your answer might imply to some…

…especially given that many Christians have been trained by many a well-meaning pastor to believe that deeper meanings of Scripture are hidden just below the surface in the original Greek, and this simply isn’t true in general. Most English translations of the Bible are in general quite faithful, and where there’s ambiguity or range of meaning in the English there usually is in the Greek as well.

To be clear I’m not saying you’re wrong overall, just the it would be good to clarify your answer so as not to imply things not supported by the Greek, namely that there’s a totally sharp distinction between the Greek words logos and rhema in their use in the Bible. Logos is often used to refer to a message in a way that excludes its referring to Jesus. But you are correct that Jesus is The Logos. In general unless one has spent significant time developing expertise in them it’s best not to attempt to use the Biblical languages as more often than not error results.

@bob Logos is not just the word that is spoken, and it is not just the thought behind the word, but it's also the rational mind behind the thought. That's why in the Matthew example you gave we are to let our yes be yes and our no be no because the yes and the no are supposed to represent what's going on in our heart and in our mind. That's why logos is used there. It's true that logos does not always mean Jesus when it is used in Scripture but it always carries that same meaning of the thought and the rational mind behind what is spoken.

@bob Jesus is the rational mind, the thought, and the intention behind the words of Almighty God made into flesh...The Logos.

To take this out of my word against yours, here’s Strong’s entry for logos: biblehub.com/greek/3056.htm. And here it is for rhema: biblehub.com/greek/4487.htm. While there are differences, if you read through both entries there’s a lot of overlap too which accords with how you see them used in the NT. Also it’s vital with any language to not forget polysemy—most words have a range of senses and the meaning is contextually determined. Greek words often don’t have a single rigid definition. E.g. agape can mean God’s love but it can also refer to the Pharisees’ love of money.

Basically this answer as currently written perpetuates the well meaning but harmful view of the Greek as the decoder ring for the NT—if you know it you can unlock the “hidden meaning” from the NT. This is mostly the fault of the way pastors learn and then well-menacingly but generally erroneously apply biblical languages into the pulpit. It primes Christians to be open to being misled by false teachers with mystical sounding false arguments from the biblical languages, and to eres no need for it if people will leave interacting with the Biblical languages to those with linguistic expertise.

@bob And scrolling down in the bible hub link you offered you will find Thayer's definition which includes this: "Accordingly, a twofold use of the term is to be distinguished: one which relates to speaking, and one which relates to thinking.". Scrolling down farther to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance you will find this: "something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression ".

@bob It is no secret that the ancient Greek has the ability to express nuances of concept that the English language cannot encapsulate or express with brevity or succinctness of term. It is not a 'hidden meaning' but a richness and depth that can be discovered. The simplest, plainest English translation of the Gospel contains God's power unto salvation without commentary or appeal to the Greek but there is depth and edification to be had for those who are so inclined.

@bob Incidentally, to be precise, the passage in Matthew 5 is specifically in regards to swearing falsely. In other words, don't say yes and do no; don't swear to God in order to convince yourself or someone else how serious you are. Simply say yes or no and then do that. That's why logos is used there...it is not just about the word that is spoken but the intention. You don't have to know Greek to pick that up in the context.

I think you’re giving Greek too much credit and English too little. It’s probably better to say that the languages are distinct so some things don’t translate well between them. Greek can be highly nuanced or not. English likewise. They’re both languages, neither with special status (other than that God chose Greek to record the NT which is pretty cool. :)).

You’re not wrong about what you found in those lexicon entries but my point wasn’t that they can’t be different it’s that they aren’t necessarily, in all or even most cases significantly different and they certainly do not each have a single rigid definition. And if you take each Strongs w try as a whole you see that.

Full disclosure I’m not a Greek grammar expert. But I have studied it as language diligently for enough years that I no longer remember how many. :) And I’ve read a good bit of the Bible in Greek. Learning the language has value. Just not the value that most assume.

I have only found it to add significant depth a handful of times. But it has been really cool to read the text directly, and it’s helped me understand translation and why there are difficult to translate passages.

And it has given me tools to refute common myths about the Greek.

@bob Don't get me wrong, I'm not holding Greek up as the end all and be all. In fact, I don't even speak it. I study in English, I meditate on English passages, I pray and think in English. But understanding that there are multiple, different Greek words for what in English is rendered as love each time and then re-reading those passages with the Greek nuances in mind makes a big difference in understanding.

@bob I've also found it astoundingly common, when trying to refute or defend against a false teaching, that peeking into the Greek under the English supports the defense and tears down the falsity. It happens far too often, whether the wrong idea is from outside or within, for me to downplay it. If I ever look into the Greek and come up with something that is off the edge of the map of the context then I know I have done something wrong but, honestly, that has not happened yet.

I attribute that to excellent translations and God's ability to speak across language and culture.

@bob I've been in the written word every day since 6/12/2002 and the Greek, what little I have gleaned from it, has only ever helped me to grow.

I commend you for reading God’s word, it’s a treasure that is often neglected, and it’s a great that you’re digging into it! :) Agreed the vast majority of our translations are excellent, and agreed that a good many false teachings based on Greek are based on faulty use of Greek. It’s not always easy to understand why it’s faulty (e.g. JW’s false claim from the Greek that Jesus is “a god” not “God”;

I will say that in my Greek study journey, at first I made mistakes with Greek frequently and didn’t realize it. My confidence was high, my awareness of my lack of knowledge was low. For example I didn’t understand Greek’s fluid word order or case system.