The Compassion of Christ

[Binyawmene]

Compassion is both a divine attribute and a communicable attribute shared with humanity (Psalms 145:8, 2 Corinthians 1:3, James 5:11). It's love in action and God’s love flowing through Jesus Christ to meet the needs of others. And compassion is both divine attribute and human attribute. In the life of Jesus Christ, however, compassion is uniquely expressed through the hypostatic union of his Divine and human natures. The verb σπλαγχνίζομαι (splagchnizomai, “to be moved with compassion”) is used 12 times in the New Testament, and in the Gospels it is applied directly to Jesus Christ 8 specific times (Matthew 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34, Mark 1:41, 6:34, 8:2, Luke 7:13). Each instance shows the sequence of stirrings. functionality, manifestation, result, with His human nature feeling compassion and his Divine Nature exercising omnipotence.

Greek Grammar Analysis:
Lexical Root: σπλάγχνον (splagchnon) = “inward parts, bowels, heart” is metaphor for deep emotion.
Verb: σπλαγχνίζομαι (splagchnizomai) = “to be moved in the inward parts,” “to feel compassion.

Grammatical Features:
Voice: Middle/passive deponent.
Mood: Indicative.
Tense: Aorist.
Person/Number: 3rd person singular.

Christological Implication of the Grammar:

Human Nature receives the stirring (passive). Passive Form (stirring). The verb’s passive and mirrors Jesus Christ human experience. His soul is moved or stirred by compassion in his human nature and authentically felt as emotion.

Divine Nature expresses the action (active). Active Meaning (functionality). Despite the passive form, the verb functions actively: Jesus Christ himself is the one doing the action. His Divine Nature acted with authority and power.

Both natures communicated to the one Son‑Person, so the narrative rightly says: “Jesus was moved with compassion and healed them.” (Matthew 14:14).

Scriptural References of Jesus’ Splagchnizomai:

1). Matthew 9:36
⦁ Stirrings: He felt compassion seeing the crowds “harassed and helpless.
⦁ Functionality: He acts as Shepherd, teaching and sending laborers.
⦁ Manifestation: His words and commissioning of disciples.
⦁ Result: The people are guided and cared for.

2). Matthew 14:14
⦁ Stirrings: He felt compassion for the sick.
⦁ Functionality: Divine healing power.
⦁ Manifestation: He touched and healed.
⦁ Result: The sick was restored.

3). Matthew 15:32
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for the hungry crowd.
⦁ Functionality: Divine creative power to provide food.
⦁ Manifestation: Blessing and breaking bread.
⦁ Result: Thousands fed, with leftovers.

4). Matthew 20:34
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for blind men.
⦁ Functionality: Divine authority to open eyes.
⦁ Manifestation: He touched their eyes.
⦁ Result: They immediately received sight.

5). Mark 1:41
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for the leper.
⦁ Functionality: Divine cleansing power.
⦁ Manifestation: He stretched out His hand and touched him.
⦁ Result: Leprosy departed instantly.

6). Mark 6:34
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for the crowd “like sheep without a shepherd.”
⦁ Functionality: Divine wisdom to teach.
⦁ Manifestation: His teaching ministry.
⦁ Result: The people were fed spiritually.

7). Mark 8:2
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for the hungry.
⦁ Functionality: Divine multiplication of food.
⦁ Manifestation: Distribution through disciples.
⦁ Result: All ate and were satisfied.

8). Luke 7:13
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for the widow at Nain.
⦁ Functionality: Divine authority over death.
⦁ Manifestation: He spoke: “Young man, arise!”
⦁ Result: The son was raised, grief turned to joy.

Now that I have everything explained so you'll know why I will ask this questions.

Was Jesus Christ's stirrings (moved with compassion) being monergistic in nature? If yes, explain. If no, again, explain.

 

[Josheb]

Was Jesus Christ's stirrings (moved with compassion) being monergistic in nature? If yes, explain. If no, again, explain.

If Jesus is God, then his "stirrings" cannot not be monergistic. To say otherwise would be to create dependency in which the Creator is dependent upon His creation. They're being monergistic does not, however, preclude Jesus from also relying upon the Godhead. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive. Jesus' many mentions of doing and saying only what his Father told him to say and do 1) have soteriological context, 2) have anthropological context, and 3) should be understood specifically as example Jesus was providing on how humans were always supposed to have lived so, therefore 4) they exist in a context of judgment and implied repudiation.

The same compassionate guy who came first as a lamb led in his own silence to slaughter is coming back with a sword in his mouth. The stirrings on that occasion won't be qualifiable as compassion. Same guy. Different mission.

 

[Binyawmene]

If Jesus is God, then his "stirrings" cannot not be monergistic. To say otherwise would be to create dependency in which the Creator is dependent upon His creation. They're being monergistic does not, however, preclude Jesus from also relying upon the Godhead. The two conditions are not mutually exclusive. Jesus' many mentions of doing and saying only what his Father told him to say and do 1) have soteriological context, 2) have anthropological context, and 3) should be understood specifically as example Jesus was providing on how humans were always supposed to have lived so, therefore 4) they exist in a context of judgment and implied repudiation.

The same compassionate guy who came first as a lamb led in his own silence to slaughter is coming back with a sword in his mouth. The stirrings on that occasion won't be qualifiable as compassion. Same guy. Different mission.

The grammar is what makes me parse out the question.

"Moved with compassion" is passive according to the grammar. In the incarnation, Jesus also lives as a true man, fully reliant on the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit. His prayers, obedience, and reliance on the Holy Spirit show genuine human dependence, while his Divine Nature remains the source of monergistic initiative. The Divine Nature being the monergistic initiative and the human nature reliance on the Father are not contradictory. As God, Jesus acts monergistically; as man, he receives and responds in dependence. Both are true simultaneously without confusion or contradiction.

 

[Arial]

The grammar is what makes me parse out the question.

"Moved with compassion" is passive according to the grammar. In the incarnation, Jesus also lives as a true man, fully reliant on the Father and empowered by the Holy Spirit. His prayers, obedience, and reliance on the Holy Spirit show genuine human dependence, while his Divine Nature remains the source of monergistic initiative. The Divine Nature being the monergistic initiative and the human nature reliance on the Father are not contradictory. As God, Jesus acts monergistically; as man, he receives and responds in dependence. Both are true simultaneously without confusion or contradiction.

Jesus in his human nature always relied on the Father. Just as we are to do. He always did what the Father told him to do. His purpose was different than ours. He came to redeem. I believe, in answer to your question, that it is all monergism, and the passive element falls into the category of the responsibility of the human, and his human nature.

To relate it to us it would be in the sense that both salvation and sanctification are works of God, and God working in us to conform us to the image of Christ and complete our faith he authored in us; and at the same time, we have a responsibility to do as he says. His work must become action in us.

In his human nature Jesus possessed compassion. In his divine nature, he is compassion, not merely possessing it. Therefore, in his humanity he acts on what he possesses.

 

[Binyawmene]

Jesus in his human nature always relied on the Father. Just as we are to do. He always did what the Father told him to do. His purpose was different than ours. He came to redeem. I believe, in answer to your question, that it is all monergism, and the passive element falls into the category of the responsibility of the human, and his human nature.

Sure. Let's take this a little step further. Take number five in the OP for our example:

5). Mark 1:41
⦁ Stirrings: Compassion for the leper.
⦁ Functionality: Divine cleansing power.
⦁ Manifestation: He stretched out His hand and touched him.
⦁ Result: Leprosy departed instantly.

Moved with compassion is the stirring. And splagchnizomai is a middle/passive deponent. In Greek, a deponent verb is a verb that is middle/passive in form but active in meaning. It looks grammatically passive, but it functions semantically as active.

• Passive form: The morphology (ending) suggests the subject is being acted upon.
• Active meaning: In usage, the subject is actually performing the action.

There is no doubt that the passive form, the stirring, is monergistic in nature. As for the active meaning I've placed the action aspect to the Divine Nature because that follows the sequences of functionality, manifestation, and result. If you place the action to the human nature, then it would be more of an obedience rather than a responsibility. The human nature does action by touching, speaking, and teaching, etc. But only as a vessel to carry out the action of compassion to others. But the human nature itself doesn't have omnipotence of authority and power (Divine cleansing power). And his human nature alone cannot multiply bread or raise the dead. Those actions require Divine Omnipotence. Therefore, the miraculous results still testify to his divine nature and not to his human nature.

 

[Arial]

. If you place the action to the human nature, then it would be more of an obedience rather than a responsibility.

I don't disagree with anything you said in that post. Here I just want to point out that obedience is our responsibility. As it was concerning the human nature of Christ.

I have a question of my own. Was his willingness to obey his divine or human nature? If that doesn't change the subject of the OP too much.

And his human nature alone cannot multiply bread or raise the dead. Those actions require Divine Omnipotence. Therefore, the miraculous results still testify to his divine nature and not to his human nature.

Agree. And that is why the arguments for only a created human nature of Jesus and no deity, fall apart. It is why Jesus said to the Jews in John 10:24-26 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep."

It is why he was able to say that he was Lord of the Sabbath.

Can it be said that his human nature in emotion and action, was always responding to, the result of, his divine nature? Was his human nature, though completely truly human, at the same time always and everywhere still in union with the Father in the sense that it was before the incarnation?

 

[Binyawmene]

I have a question of my own. Was his willingness to obey his divine or human nature? If that doesn't change the subject of the OP too much.

Maybe you can give some clarification to your question.
I will take a stab at your question from what I perceived from it.

Compatibilistic: The divine properties (like the will) and divine attributes (like omnipotence) are of the divine nature and not of the persons. The same goes for the human nature too. Jesus Christ's human will is compatibilistic in John 6:38 "not to do my will" and Matthew 26:39 "not as I will" is referring to the human will of Christ. And the divine will of the Father is technically the divine will of the Son. There is only one Divine Will of God. The Gospels are very clear that he cannot do anything on his own initiative (John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and he did not work outside of the Father's will (John 4:34, 5:36, 14:31, 17:4). That's if you are keeping your Christology historically in alignment to both Chalcedonian (dyophysitism) and Constantinopolitan (dyothelitism).

"...but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will." (Third Council of Constantinople).​

The Father and the Son share one divine will, because the property of will follows nature, not person. Since the divine nature is numerically one, the divine will is one. The human will “bound” in the sense of never deviating from the divine will. The obedience is not the divine nature obeying itself, but the human nature freely consenting to the divine will he shares with the Father. The divine nature cannot be “obedient” because it is the very source of authority; obedience belongs to the human will, which is never autonomous but always compatibilistically aligned.

Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered​

According to Christ's sufferings, obedience is always from the human will to the divine will. The divine will does not “obey” the human will’s compassion. That would invert the order of causality. Instead, the human will freely consent to the divine initiatives. But according to Christ's compassions, which is not suffering but an elevation to relieve suffering of others. Christ’s compassions are passive instead of a cooperation. Most of the time there are cooperation between the human will to the divine will. Except it's not true in every case like his compassions is an excellent example of passive. And we must let Christ have his human will to avoid monothelitism.

 

[Arial]

Maybe you can give some clarification to your question.
I will take a stab at your question from what I perceived from it.

Compatibilistic: The divine properties (like the will) and divine attributes (like omnipotence) are of the divine nature and not of the persons. The same goes for the human nature too. Jesus Christ's human will is compatibilistic in John 6:38 "not to do my will" and Matthew 26:39 "not as I will" is referring to the human will of Christ. And the divine will of the Father is technically the divine will of the Son. There is only one Divine Will of God. The Gospels are very clear that he cannot do anything on his own initiative (John 5:30; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10) and he did not work outside of the Father's will (John 4:34, 5:36, 14:31, 17:4). That's if you are keeping your Christology historically in alignment to both Chalcedonian (dyophysitism) and Constantinopolitan (dyothelitism).

"...but his human will following, and not resisting or opposing, but rather subject to his divine and all-powerful will." (Third Council of Constantinople).​

The Father and the Son share one divine will, because the property of will follows nature, not person. Since the divine nature is numerically one, the divine will is one. The human will “bound” in the sense of never deviating from the divine will. The obedience is not the divine nature obeying itself, but the human nature freely consenting to the divine will he shares with the Father. The divine nature cannot be “obedient” because it is the very source of authority; obedience belongs to the human will, which is never autonomous but always compatibilistically aligned.

Hebrews 5:8 Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered​

According to Christ's sufferings, obedience is always from the human will to the divine will. The divine will does not “obey” the human will’s compassion. That would invert the order of causality. Instead, the human will freely consent to the divine initiatives. But according to Christ's compassions, which is not suffering but an elevation to relieve suffering of others. Christ’s compassions are passive instead of a cooperation. Most of the time there are cooperation between the human will to the divine will. Except it's not true in every case like his compassions is an excellent example of passive. And we must let Christ have his human will to avoid monothelitism.

That is what I was asking. So, asked and answered. And aptly so.

 

[Josheb]

As God, Jesus acts monergistically; as man, he receives and responds in dependence.

The angel is in the details. The man Jesus has never known sin. His human experience is unlike any other and because his humanity is that of divine design unadulterated by sin..... his experience is also monergistic. There is no division between the divinity and humanity of Christ in regard to the work ("ergon") of compassion. We, you, me, and all the other sinners on the planet, do not share either condition and attempts to inordinately anthropomorphize Jesus with comparison to sinners is misguided at best.

Both are true simultaneously without confusion or contradiction.

I know you mean Christologically, but as far as the posts go, we wouldn't be having this discussion if there was no confusion or contradiction . My point is this: Jesus is unique among men, unique among all humans. All that he possesses in regard to compassion is monergistic, and that applies to both his divinity and his humanity. He's not a made creature. His compassion comes from within himself, from who and what he is, and who and what he is is both fully God and fully man. He was not made in our image, we were made in his. Jesus is never a creature, and he is never separated from God and the inherent inescapable divinity of the Godhead.