Brother, I certainly agree that we should meditate on God’s Word (Ps. 1:2; Ps. 119:97) and seek the illumination of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 1 Cor. 2:12–13). However, I don’t see Scripture teaching that every passage contains three distinct messages, a “Logos” meaning, a personal “Rhema,” and a deeper hidden spiritual principle.
The New Testament does distinguish between logos (λόγος) and rhēma (ῥῆμα), but not in the way they are often presented today. Both words commonly mean “word,” “message,” or “utterance,” and their meanings significantly overlap depending on the context. Scripture never teaches a hermeneutical method in which the written Word is only the surface level while a separate “Rhema” reveals a deeper personal meaning.
Meditation is not moving beyond the text; it is dwelling upon the text so that we rightly understand and apply its intended meaning. The Holy Spirit does not give a meaning that bypasses or supersedes the author’s original intent. Rather, He illumines our minds to understand what He has already inspired in Scripture (Luke 24:27, 32, 44–45; 2 Tim. 2:15).
There is certainly application, but application must flow from sound interpretation. The text has one intended meaning, grounded in its historical, grammatical, and literary context, though it may have many legitimate applications. If we separate personal impressions from the author’s intended meaning, we risk attributing to God things He has not spoken.
Therefore, our goal is not to move beyond the written Word but to understand it more deeply, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture and the Holy Spirit to illuminate what He has already revealed.
While the exact three-part phrasing you used isn’t a rigid academic formula, it captures a deep truth about how the biblical text functions on multiple layers simultaneously. It reflects a classic, non-superficial approach to reading, in which a text is never just one thing; it is a historical record, a living voice, and a repository of timeless wisdom.
Here is how @Edward429451 three messages map out when we look at them through the lens of linguistics, history, and theology. The Logos (The Surface Message) hit the nail on the head here. In Greek philology, Logos represents the objective, written, and structured word. On the surface layer, this is the historical-grammatical meaning of the text. What it is: the text as it appears on the page.
The syntax, the vocabulary, the historical context, and the author’s original intent to the original audience. This layer is the anchor. Without a firm grasp of the Logos, any deeper interpretation can easily drift into subjective guessing. What did this literally mean to a first-century Jew or an ancient Israelite?
The Rhema (The Personal, Living Voice). In the New Testament, Rhema is often distinguished from Logos as the spoken or uttered word. While Logos is the entire landscape of truth, a Rhema is often described as a specific word brought to life by the Holy Spirit for an immediate, personal situation. It’s that sudden “spark” where a verse you’ve read ten times before suddenly leaps off the page and directly addresses a specific crisis, decision, or grief in your life today. This aligns with Hebrews 4:12
" For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart."
Along with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 4:4 that man lives by every rhema that proceeds from the mouth of God.
"But he answered, 'It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”
It transforms the text from ancient history into an active, conversational relationship
The underlying spiritual principle or universal application. This third layer bridges the gap between the ancient Logos and your daily life. If the Logos is the specific historical shell, the principle is the timeless spiritual DNA inside it. The biblical writers were usually addressing hyper-specific, localized problems (e.g., ancient Near Eastern agricultural laws or dietary disputes in 1st-century Rome). We don’t live in those cultures, so we cannot apply the surface text identically. Instead, we extract the underlying principle.
Take the Deuteronomic law: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” On the Logos layer, it’s about animal welfare in ancient farming. But the underlying spiritual principle is that a worker is worthy of their sustenance. Paul later extracts this exact principle in 1 Corinthians 9 to argue that ministers should be financially supported.
If you are asking if this is a scripturally and experientially accurate way to interact with the text, yes, absolutely. In fact, @Edward429451 three-part framework closely mirrors a famous historical method developed by early church scholars known as the “Quadriga,” the fourfold sense of scripture. They argued that every text has: The Literal sense (What happened — your Logos), The Allegorical/Spiritual sense (What to believe — your Principle), The Moral/Tropological sense (How to act in daily life — your Application), The Anagogical sense (Our ultimate spiritual destiny)
By breaking it down into the Written Word (Logos), the Spoken Word (Rhema), and the Timeless Principle, he created a brilliant, highly functional tool for reading. It keeps the study intellectually grounded in history, spiritually open to divine guidance, and practically focused on character and daily life. It prevents a reader from falling into the trap of superficial reading on one hand, or ungrounded mysticism on the other. Great job.
Peter
Interesting. Could you define what you mean by a “conversational relationship” with the text?
From my understanding, Edward believes the Holy Spirit communicates through audible impressions or personal utterances distinct from the written Scriptures, and you appear to affirm his hermeneutical distinction between Rhema and Logos. Is that an accurate representation of your position?
If so, how does your approach differ from the traditional Jewish methods of exegesis, namely Pardes, Peshat (the plain, literal meaning), Remez (the hinted meaning), Derash (the interpretive or homiletical application), and Sod (the hidden or mystical meaning)?
Historically, both Jewish and Protestant hermeneutics insist that every legitimate application must remain tethered to the Peshat, the author’s intended meaning. Even when the rabbis employed Remez, Derash, or Sod, these were recognized as distinct interpretive approaches rather than new revelations spoken by God through the text.
Would you therefore say that your “conversational relationship” belongs within one of these established hermeneutical categories, or are you proposing an additional category whereby the Holy Spirit imparts fresh, individualized messages through Scripture? If it is the latter, on what exegetical basis do you distinguish those impressions from subjective intuition or personal experience?
That is the point I am trying to understand, because I do not see the New Testament establishing a hermeneutical distinction between Logos as the written Word and Rhema as a separate, personal word from God. Rather, the Holy Spirit illumines the inspired Scriptures, enabling us to understand, believe, and apply the meaning already contained within the text (Luke 24:45; John 16:13–15; 2 Timothy 3:16–17). Illumination is not new revelation; it is the Spirit opening our minds to the meaning He has already inspired.
There are two primary Greek words that describe Scripture which are translated “word” in the New Testament. The first, logos, refers principally to the total inspired Word of God and to Jesus, who is the living Word. Logos is found in John 1:1; Luke 8:11; Philippians 2:16; Hebrews 4:12; and other verses. The second Greek word translated “word” is rhema, which refers to the spoken word. Rhema literally means an utterance (individually, collectively or specifically). Examples are found in Luke 1:38; 3:2; 5:5; and Acts 11:16.
Charismatic and non-charismatic Christians have different views regarding rhema and how it should be understood. Some charismatics view rhema as the voice of the Holy Spirit speaking to them at the present moment. They believe they should be guided by the Holy Spirit through inner feelings, impressions and experiences. Some believe that the direct words of God to the individual can also be imparted through the words of others, such as a preacher in a worship service or a friend who counsels them. Through these avenues, the Christian experiences God’s direct leading. There is also the belief that the spoken word has more power than the written word, but there is no biblical basis for such a belief.
Evangelical Christians, however, have a much different understanding of rhema, believing that it is essentially synonymous with logos. In other words, the specific guidance we receive from the Holy Spirit at any given time can only be discerned by the general principles laid down in the Bible. Where the Bible is silent on specifics—such as where a young person should go to college—then the Christian applies biblical principles (good stewardship of God-given resources, protecting one’s heart and mind from godless influences, etc.) to the situation and thereby arrives at a decision.
The test of the authenticity of a rhema from God is how it compares to the whole of Scripture. Orthodoxy says that God will not speak a word that contradicts His written Word, the Scriptures, so there is a built-in safeguard to prevent misinterpretation. The obvious danger is that one who is not familiar with the logos can misinterpret or misunderstand what he or she perceives to be a rhema.
The Word of Faith movement helped spread the prosperity gospel.
While Roberts was one of the first to combine New Thought principles with faith healing, the most prominent evangelist of the prosperity gospel—and the father of the Word of Faith movement—was Kenneth E. Hagin (1917–2003). In 1962, Hagin founded Kenneth Hagin Ministries to spread his teachings, which emphasize speaking words of faith as a way to manifest health, wealth, and other blessings.
One of his most influential ideas was his distinguishing between the logos (the written Word of God) and the rhema (the spoken or revealed Word).
He argued that rhema is the means by which believers activate God’s promises. As Russell S. Woodbridge says, “More than any other factor, the Word of Faith movement was the vehicle responsible for spreading prosperity teaching across the United States in the late 20th century.”
It’s the Space Trilogy consisting of (3) books: 1. Out of the Silent Planet 2. Perelandra 3. That Hideous Strength. They are nowhere near as famous as the “Narnia” books were–but they are very good.
Well the only thing I can think of is that you may not have studied the scriptures enough to be able to glean them truths? Or given that we are both of the body of Christ, perhaps you are a hand and I am a foot? Can a hand understand a foot? They have different functions so perhaps have been taught similarly but different things according to each’s path? Something like that. Who knows.
I know this, if any of my words do not agree with what scripture says, then reject my word and stick with the scriptures…I guarantee you that what I have said, is in the scriptures, so keep reading Brother, and of course, pray about these things and be open to the Spirit’s promptings.
The Word of Faith movement helped spread the prosperity gospel.
While Roberts was one of the first to combine New Thought principles with faith healing, the most prominent evangelist of the prosperity gospel—and the father of the Word of Faith movement—was Kenneth E. Hagin (1917–2003). In 1962, Hagin founded Kenneth Hagin Ministries to spread his teachings, which emphasize speaking words of faith as a way to manifest health, wealth, and other blessings. One of his most influential ideas was his distinguishing between the logos (the written Word of God) and the rhema (the spoken or revealed Word).
He argued that rhema is the means by which believers activate God’s promises. As Russell S. Woodbridge says, “More than any other factor, the Word of Faith movement was the vehicle responsible for spreading prosperity teaching across the United States in the late 20th century.”
Not too difficult to discern from whence you are coming from.
Here we go again. I’ve heard of the word of faith movement but I can’t claim any association with it. So what you are saying is that you reject the Rhemas of God?
So you don’t use a Concordance? I do (Blueletterbible.org) If you use that for each verse that says 'word of God, and you look that up and see that, sometimes it says Logos and sometimes it says Rhema. So really, the only lacking is you studying more thoroughly. I didn’t make that up, you can pick up the Bible yourself and read it to your hearts content and see the truth.
Well, I will explain what I mean. I’m sure Edward can speak for himself. A conversational relationship with the text means you aren’t just reading a historical monologue; you are participating in a two-way dialogue. It is the active, rhythmic movement between the Logos and the Rhema. Instead of treating the text like an ancient artifact to be dissected under a microscope, or a magic mirror to project your own feelings onto, a conversational relationship balances both:
You listen to the text’s past (Logos): You do the hard work of understanding what the author meant. You respect its boundaries, its grammar, and its history. This is you listening to the speaker’s original voice without interrupting.
The text speaks to your present (Rhema): Armed with that objective meaning, you allow the Holy Spirit to apply that timeless truth directly to your timely reality. In a monologue, you just read words. In a conversation, the text reads you. You bring your real-world questions, grief, and decisions to the static Logos, and the text responds with a dynamic Rhema that hits your specific moment.
Without the Logos, the “conversation” becomes a hallucination where you just hear what you want to hear. Without the Rhema, the “conversation” becomes a dry academic lecture. The conversational relationship is where the ancient word and the modern soul actually meet and talk.
Think about this. The New Testament writers quote Old Testament scriptures and use present-tense verbs of speaking, rather than past-tense verbs of writing. They treat the written text as a living voice.
"And have you forgotten the exhortation that addresses you as sons? My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor be weary when reproved by him. For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." Hebrews 12:5-6
Paul quotes Proverbs 3:11–12, a centuries-old written text, but says the text addresses the present tense, conversational to the reader right now.
"Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts…'" Hebrews 3:7
Instead of saying “as it was written in Psalm 95,” the author says the Holy Spirit says it (continual, active speech) through the text.
If a relationship is two-way, the text cannot just be passive data; it must actively react to the reader. This is the ultimate “conversational” text. You don’t just read the Bible; the Bible reads you. It actively sifts, exposes, and responds to the inner condition of the person holding it. James 1:23–25: The comparison of the Word to a mirror. A mirror requires a present participant. Looking into the “perfect law” is an interactive encounter where your current state is reflected to you by what is written.
“And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 24:27
“They said to each other, 'Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?” Luke 24:32
Here, the conversational relationship is literal. The objective, written text (“Moses and all the Prophets”—the Logos) is actively opened and discussed, resulting in an immediate, internal, heart-burning reality (Rhema). The written text was the exact vehicle for the living encounter. Then you have this.
"Your words were found, and I ate them, ** and your words became to me a joy
** and the delight of my heart, for I am called by your name, O LORD, God of hosts. Jeremiah 15:16
This captures the transition from the page to the person. “Finding” the words is the objective Logos; “eating” and experiencing the internal “delight” is the interactive, personal consumption of the text.
Peter
Peter, I agree with much of what you’ve written. Scripture is living and active (Heb. 4:12), and the Holy Spirit still speaks to His people through the written Word. I also agree that the Christian life is not merely an academic exercise. God convicts, comforts, rebukes, and sanctifies us through Scripture.
Where I think we differ is in the distinction between Logos and Rhema. I don’t believe the New Testament presents these as two different categories of God’s Word, one objective and one subjective. The Greek words logos and rhema are used interchangeably in many contexts, and neither word inherently means “the written Word” versus “a personal word from God.”
When Hebrews says, “as the Holy Spirit says” (Heb. 3:7), the author is not introducing a second revelation alongside Psalm 95. Rather, he is showing that the Holy Spirit continues to speak through the same written text. The meaning of Psalm 95 has not changed; its relevance remains because God’s Word is living and enduring.
Likewise, in Luke 24, Jesus did not give the disciples a private Rhema apart from Scripture. He opened the Scriptures, explained their true meaning, and then their hearts burned within them. The experience followed the exposition; it did not replace it.
So I would say the Holy Spirit does indeed make the Word/Memra/Yeshua personal, but He does so by illuminating the objective meaning already contained in Scripture and pressing its implications upon our hearts. He does not create a new layer of meaning unique to each reader. The application may differ from believer to believer, but the meaning remains the one intended by the divine Author.
That, I believe, best preserves both the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16–17) and the Spirit’s ongoing ministry of illumination (1 Cor. 2:12–16), without introducing a Logos/Rhema distinction that Scripture itself never explicitly makes.
Amen Brother. Perhaps if we unpack this verse from Hebrews 4 it will shine even more light on it.
Hebrews 4:12
**12 **For the word 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…/KJV
For the word of God (Logos) is quick (Alive) and powerful (active, operative:—effectual, powerful)…
…and is a discerner (relating to judging, fit for judging, skilled in judging) of the thoughts and intents of the heart…!! We’re talking about the Logos, here. The written word, your Bible. It is Alive, and judges the intentions of our heart ! Whoa that’s huge.
I myself am inclined to think of this as, it’s really the Holy Spirit (?) who is present every time we crack open the Bible to read. We open it, the Holy Spirit is there ready to judge and teach and lead us into all truth.
Does that sound almost Gnostic? Lol. IOW, what happens is, when we open our Bible to read, we are coming into the presence of God. That is a supernatural book, the bible. God did something very special with it, even the copy you own!
And there Brother is where the conversationalist comes into play. It happens no matter what when we read His word. So ask Him questions if you don’t understand something.
@AngelsForOfficers, Under your heading “UFOs–Type 2,” you quote verses 5 and 6, but you don’t share what book and chapter these come from. Please do so, or we can’t talk about their interpretation.
As far as I’m concerned, many of these verses come from passages that are really symbolic visions in books, especially Zechariah.
Also, until the aliens visit us visibly, I won’t be convinced that they exist, though I am a fan of Star Wars and Star Trek, which are obviously fictional.
I noticed the original poster failed to cover what is written in Ezekiel 1 what Ezekiel saw. Ezekiel did his best to describe what he saw by the only objects he had in his day, and still did a pretty good job of it.
We should not be surprised that God has technology that goes way, way past man’s understanding and technology. Afterall, God is The Creator of the universe, so He ought to have intimate knowledge of how things are made and work.
Warning: Rabbit Hole Ahead. Geeking out with jacket and glasses on!
The Saqqara Bird: Discovered in an Egyptian tomb in 1898, this small wooden object dates back to around 200 BC. Due to its straight wings, some alternative theorists have suggested that it may represent a model glider.
The Abydos Hieroglyphs: Within a temple at Abydos, Egypt, some carvings visually resemble modern technology, including a helicopter, a tank, and a submarine.
In 1901, divers exploring an ancient Roman shipwreck off the coast of Greece recovered a corroded, calcified lump of bronze. It sat in a museum for decades because no one knew what to make of it.
When scientists finally used modern X-ray and CT imaging to look inside, they were stunned. What it actually is: A highly sophisticated, hand-cranked mechanical analog computer built by the ancient Greeks around 100–200 BC. Behind its bronze face was a complex system of over 30 interlocking precision gears.
By turning a crank, a user could calculate and track the positions of the Sun, Moon, and the five planets known to the Greeks. Predict solar and lunar eclipses decades in advance. Model the irregular orbit of the Moon. Track the four-year countdown cycle for the ancient Olympic Games.
Just some interesting facts in history. Where did they come from and why are they there? No one really knows. But it is interesting.
Peter
I suggest you look into geologist professor Dr. Robert M. Schoch’s discoveries of the water weathering at the Great Sphinx enclosure. Can you believe the Egyptologists never bothered to consult a geologist on the type weathering at the Great Sphinx?
Schoch’s data, which over 200 of his geologist colleagues agreed, showed it was water erosion on the base of the Sphinx and enclosure, not sand erosion. He also revealed that area of the Sahara had not been a wet tropic zone for at least back to the end of the previous Ice Age (around 9 to 11,000 B.C.).
Then add the time that it took for the tropic rains to create those stones smooth, and it goes back even farther than that he said.
Thus the Egyptians did not build the Great Sphinx, as proven by the type weathering on the stones there. Egyptian history does not go back that far when the Sahara was a wet tropic zone.