Thanks, this gives me a good pointer (rhema vs logos). I'll need to investigate those verses (context and the Greek) and read some more background of the 2 concepts before providing feedback to your answer. In the meantime, +1.

Actually you also mention graphe which is more pertinent to my Q rephrased as follows: why do evangelicals, in citing Heb 4:12, often substitute / equate the "living logos" with the meaning of graphe? Why instrumentalize graphe rather than teach how Jesus can subtly discern and judge between finest distinctions of the self-deceiving heart, thus shifting the focus to Jesus rather than mere words, esp. when a preacher can surreptitiously equate his/her interpretation of the graphe preached to what alone should be the role of Jesus?

Up-voted +1. 'The letter killeth ; the Spirit giveth life.' 'The words that I speak unto you (not, 'the words written in the bible' - though they be the same words) - they are spirit and they are life. It is that which is spoken by Christ and conveyed in Spirit which is saving and life-giving. . . . . . Also, good exegesis is needed that we may clearly understand the word of God, conveyed by prophet and apostle. But good exegesis does not draw attention to itself but to the word.

@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.

@MikeBorden I like your last comment there; it clarifies your answer. But even so, the "solitary protection" you described is a passive mechanism achieved through canonization plus the doctrine of verbal inspiration (i.e. every word is inspired): a limiting function that is not alive. sola scriptura as a norming resource is a direct corollary and I don't have problem with it if we remember that the norming agent who applies this limit must be a human (such as a sanctioned theologian/pastor who "received the logos" and "saturated in rhema").

So even though the graphe now becomes a kind of "focusing beam" that helps the Bible reader to sort out the many "truths" presented via preaching, church councils, theology books, sermons, etc. this beam is still a passive instrument requiring a human agent to apply this beam by intelligently shining it upon those "truths" to come up with the Truth of a particular matter. Three remaining problems: 1) That same human agent saturated with rhema and given the logos can now apply that beam (graphe) to commentary & theology books; why eschew them?;

2) The matter that Heb 4:12 talks about (i.e. discerning and judging the soul's intent in matters of salvation) implies an agent different than the graphe and different than the human agent (the reader) but Jesus (in person); so why conflate Jesus with graphe when evangelicals cite this verse for this matter? 3) When evangelizing, if the gospel presentation speech is lighted up with this beam (i.e. Scripture centered) why eschew including the explanation of the context rather than risking the recipient to misunderstand the gospel by just giving the 5 verses?

@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.

But verbal inspiration is the property of the TEXT, so you cannot invoke that doctrine to make the word "living"; that's not coherent. What makes the word "living" is the illuminating agent, which is the Holy Spirit or Jesus speaking rhema to us. This is part of infallibility of Scripture. STILL, it's not the text, but Jesus. Why exegete Heb 4:12 as though the text itself doing the illumination?

Mike, you sound like someone who subscribes to Sola Scriptura (as do I), while GD seems to be struggling to understand Solo Scriptura. Most of GD's observations make sense in light of Solo Scriptura.

@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.

@MikeBorden The example in Matthew is about not swearing by anyone or anything (“34But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all…”). It feels like a stretch to interpret that as anything but “your words” or speech or the like. Sure their speech has thoughts behind it but that’s always the case at some level. The focus of that verse appears to be words more than thoughts.

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.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.