A Greek word appearing 22x in the NT, and usually translated in English translations as 'word.' Its difference, if any, from logos lies in its focus on the content of what is said. The word appears more frequently, 285x, in the Septuagint, where it is equivalent to the Hebrew word dabar, 'word,' 'thing,' 'matter.' We quote here from Danker's Greek NT Lexicon:
1. 'a communication consisting of words’, freq. w. nuance of importance or special significance, statement, pronouncement, declaration Mt 4:4 al. ῥήματα βλάσφημα blasphemous statements Ac 6:11, cp. vs.13. οὐδὲ ἓν ῥῆμα not even one reply Mt 27:14. — 2. in Heb. manner and in a species of metonymy, 'someth. that arouses talk because it is remarkable or noteworthy', a matter, thing, event Mt 18:16; Lk 1:37, 65; 2:15, 19, 51; Ac 5:32; 10:37; 2 Cor 13:1.
Such a distinction, however, is not particularly clear in the way the word is used in both the NT and the Septuagint. Now, there is a habit among preachers from charismatic circles to distinguish rhema and logos. The latter, they claim, is the written word, which does not "come alive" until it becomes rhema, i.e., when the Holy Spirit takes the logos and impresses it upon the heart of the reader/preacher/listener in such a way that it becomes personal and energizing in its command and significance. There is no evidence either in the grammar or lexicography of the word to justify such a usage. In the life of these church, the preacher would often say that God had given him/her a rhema. The effect on the listening congregation is to impress on them that what is being said carries particular authority because it has the special "anointing" of the Holy Spirit. The fact that the word has never been widely adopted in the theological heritage of the church suggests that theologians do not see such significance in the word and, perhaps, recognizing that such a use can descent into manipulation and coersion. If we preachers are living and preaching the Scriptures right, the Holy Spirit will convict with power without our implying that what we are saying is particularly "anointed." The habit does not only make a distinction in the meaning of the word which the Bible does not make (and, therefore, adding to the confusion about the Bible), it is also un-necessary, reflecting a lack of true confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to do with our preaching what He is supposed to do.
©ALBERITH
121021lch