Compassion

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

Hello, my name is Douglas Collins. I hope I am putting this post in the right section.

I am in the process of studying compassion. I find that there are four different words translated as compassion, mercy, or pity in the KJV. They are(according to the Strong’s Concordance):

sumpatheo means to feel sympathy
splagchnizomai means to feel sympathy, to pity
eleeo means to compassiate
oikteiro means to exercise pity

I can’t seem to fully understand the difference between these 4 Greek words. isn’t there a difference between pity and compassion?

oiktirmos, a word that is related to oikteiro (but is stronger in meaning according to The Strong’s Concordance), means pity and is translated as mercy or mercies in the KJV. At first I thought there might me a difference between mercy and compassion. But, after thinking about it, I believe that mercy is one aspect of compassion. Mercy is where you do not retaliate when you want to - even if they deserve it.

I always thought that pity was when you felt sorry for someone, but, you didn’t do anything to help them. However, Compassion moved you to help them.

Is sympathy another aspect of Compassion? I mean, when you sympathize with someone, it means that you understand what they are going thru - what they are feeling. Yet, it seems like compassion is a stronger word than sympathy.

According to Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Splanchnizomai “can move beyond compassion into the realm of mercy or pity.”
By moving beyond compassion isn’t he saying that mercy or pity is a stronger emotion that compassion? I would think that if would be the other way around.

Do you understand all my confusion?

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

2

Hi, Douglas,

If you think about it, Jesus not only συμπαθεῖ ἡμῖν but also ὑπερπαθεῖ καὶ ἀντιπαθεῖ ἡμῶν.

Paul, quoting Ex 33:19, uses ἐλεέω and οἰκτίρω in parallel fashion.

Rom 9:15: τῷ Μωϋσεῖ γὰρ λέγει, Ἐλεήσω ὃν ἂν ἐλεῶ, καὶ οἰκτιρήσω ὃν ἂν οἰκτίρω.

The Hebrew אָחֹן, which ἐλεῶ renders, might also be rendered with χάριν παρέχω.

The Athenian Bible Society Modern Greek

ABS Rom 9:15 Θὰ ἐλεήσω ἐκεῖνον ποὺ ἐλεῶ καὶ θὰ σπλαγχνισθῶ ἐκεῖνον ποὺ σπλαγχνίζομαι.

renders οἰκτίρω with σπλαγχνίζομαι, so I wonder if the latter replaced the former in Demotic.

Rom 9:18: ἄρα οὖν ὃν θέλει ἐλεεῖ, ὃν δὲ θέλει σκληρύνει.

This suggests that the opposite of ἐλεέω is σκληρύνομαι ὑπὸ Θεοῦ and that the ability to feel/give mercy is itself ἐκ Θεοῦ.

Yes, and thus God does to Markos.

3

eleeo means to compassiate
oikteiro means to exercise pity

Isn’t it the other way around?

“I feel your pain” – οἰκτείρω
“I do something about your pain” – ἐλεέω

In the Bible, people don’t cry to Jesus: “οἴκτειρόν με!” Which would be “Pity me!” They say “ἐλέησόν με!” “Have mercy on me!”

4

Since οἰκτείρω occurs only this one time in the NT (and as an LXX quote) I don’t think we can uphold this distinction. Bultmann in TDNT V:160 says that in the LXX “there is no palpable difference between οἰκτίρειν and ἐλεεῖν or οἰκτιρπμοί and ἕλεος.” He also quotes Aristophanes, Wasps 556 where a litigant says οἴκτιρόν μ᾽ ὦ πάτερ.

5

A very interesting concept, pity. I recommend a book by David Konstan, Pity Transformed. He tackles pity vs. compassion, and much else besides, drawing distinctions between ancient (and Biblical) and modern notions.

To get a proper grip on NT usage (which of course may vary from author to author), you should forget about the English altogether. Carefully observe the contexts in which the various Greek words occur, and draw your own conclusions. That’s the only way to go beyond what Strong tells you. And then share your conclusions here, for the enlightenment of us all!

6

Exactly. Trying to draw sharp distinctions between such concepts is not always helpful, the context will usually make the meaning clear. This discussion somewhat reminds me of the αγαπαω/φιλεω discussion where some make the assumption that there is a definite difference between the two regardless of author and context. You still hear sermons where people make a big deal about the use of the two in John 21. The first time I read through the gospel of John in Greek it became very obvious to me that such a thing is just part of John’s style: He likes to repeat things, but using different words or constructions.

7

And not just John - I’ve noticed that quite a few Greek writers will double up synonyms with no noticeable distinction. Modern writers are advised against such things but clearly Ancient Greek aesthetics was different to modern English.

8

Thanks everyone for your replies. I appreciate them.

mhw said: “To get a proper grip on NT usage (which of course may vary from author to author), you should forget about the English altogether.”

I understand your point, but, I like to look at the English words because meanings of words change over time. In Matthew 18:33 (KJV):

“Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?”

Most people, myself included, would look at the word pity and think of its meaning today. That you feel sorry for someone without being motivated to help them.

After I posted my topic. I realized that the English word pity was being used in the context of the English word compassion in this verse. I am preparing a Bible study on this topic, so I would want to point this out. As you, mhw, pointed out context is everything - and I have also found out that the same Greek word, ἐλεέω, is used for compassion and pity for this verse. So, the meanings are the same in both Greek and English.

I have discovered more in my investigation, but before I talk about what I have found, I want to know if it is possible to post links here that have to do with my subject?

Thanks.

9

During my investigation concerning compassion, I came across a website that give the definitions for both Hebrew and Greek words.

He summarizes the Hebrew words by saying:

“The Hebrew effectively draws two distant lines in the sand: at one end sparing someone’s life and at the other end a relatively abstract definition of lovingness that is intricately interwoven with the character of God.”

Can someone help me understand what “relatively abstract” means? Thank you.

10

I think he means “theological.” Compare how χάρις is used in Luke versus how it is used in Paul and John.

11

Markos, I would think that there would be a difference between οἰκτείρω and ἐλεέω. Both words are used together in the same context and by the same speaker, God.

Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy(ἐλεέω) on whom I will have mercy(ἐλεέω), and I will have compassion(οἰκτείρω) on whom I will have compassion(οἰκτείρω).

People, for stylistic reasons, use different words to say the same thing all the time, and, I understand that. However, it would seem to me, in my opinion, that here - in this verse at least - there would be a distinction between these two words. If not a big one, perhaps a subtle one.

12

Don’t get stuck too much on words, it’s context that matters. This passage is a quote from the Hebrew anyway, and I get the feeling that God is just being very Jewish here. One could say there’s a slight difference in meaning but I think it’s meant to be emphatic more than anything. Note also that each one is repeated: I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion… The entire thing could’ve been reduced to I will have mercy on whom I will; the repetition is intentional.

I’m generally averse to over-analysis in these things. I always have to fight the temptation to roll my eyes when pastors get into etymologies and word studies; I just think these practices are based on false assumptions about how languages work. Languages are not computer codes, they are quite supple and always in flux. I remember hearing a very good pastor talk about αμαρτανω and how it’s used in Homer to mean “missing the mark” and therefore that is the “essence” of what sin is :confused: . It’s ridiculous to try to understand what 1st century Jews meant by that word by examining how it’s used in an epic poem written 7 centuries before in a different dialect of Greek. It’s like telling your son that when his teacher said he did awful that it’s a good thing because about 100 years ago the word was still used to mean inspiring awe as in the awful majesty of God. A.W. Tozer still talks about the awfulness of God in his works and he was writing in the late 1950s. If he were writing today he would say the awesomeness of God because of the semantic shift with that word.

The big thing to keep in mind is that the Bible is a collection of books by different authors writing at different times and in different genres. This means that a question like what does this particular word mean in the Bible? is fundamentally flawed.

13

Matthew 18:21-35
21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?
22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.
24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.
25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.
26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion(σπλαγχνίζομαι),and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.
28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.
29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.
30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.
31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.
32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:
33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion(ἐλεέω) on thy fellowservant, even as I had
pity(ἐλεέω) on thee?
34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.
35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

This passage of scripture where Jesus uses a parable to teach on forgiveness is interesting. In verse 27, the King was “moved with compassion”. It appears that this phrase is translated from one Greek word “σπλαγχνίζομαι”. According to one website, σπλαγχνίζομαι means “a feeling that produces movement or action.” In verse 33, The Greek word appears, ἐλεέω, appears twice. According to the same aforementioned website, it states that ἐλεέω “does not particularly stress the feeling of the one performing the action.”

Is ἐλεέω in verse 33 being used in the same sense as σπλαγχνίζομαι in verse 27? It would appear so, wouldn’t it?

I find it interesting that σπλαγχνίζομαι is mentioned before the King forgave him. How many times do we forgive according to our feelings? Usually, we make the decision to forgive and the feeling comes afterward.

When Jesus Said “ἐὰν μή ἀπό ὑμῶν καρδία ἀφίημι ἐὰν μή”, He meant that forgiveness is more than an intellectual thing. it involves the emotions. Does it matter whether the emotions comes before or after forgiveness?

I’m at an impasse. anyone’s thoughts on this?

14

ἐὰν μή ἀπό ὑμῶν καρδία ἀφίημι ἐὰν μή

You had me confused for a bit, because that phrase doesn’t mean anything. Were you trying to do something with this?

Οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐρανιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν.

I still don’t think that σπλαγχνίζομαι and ἐλεέω are the same. The first one is literally referring to something going on in one’s bowels (ie., σπλαγχνίς). The second seems much more outward directed.

See Diogenes Laertius, referring to Aristotle:

ὀνειδιζόμενός ποτε ὅτι πονηρῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐλεημοσύνην ἔδωκεν, “οὐ τὸν τρόπον,” εἶπεν, “ἀλλὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἠλέησα.”

When once criticized that he gave alms to an evil man, “Not to his nature” he said, “but to the man was I merciful.”

Notice especially “ἐλεημοσύνην,” or “alms.”

15

I thought of you, Doug, the other day when I read Anestis Konstantinidis’ L2 definition of σπλαγχνίζομαι:

LSK, Δ, 104: σπλαγχνίζομαι- - αἰσθάνομαι οἶκτον, συμπάθειαν, ἔλεος…

But I think that he is more of a lumper, and it appears that you are looking for more of a splitter.

If you want to extend your study beyond the GNT, take a look at συναλγέω (Ajax 283) for which LSK gives ἀλγῶ, πονῶ, λυποῦμαι μετά τινος, μετέχω τῆς θλίψεώς τινος, and for which the scholiast has συνάχθομαι.

This reminds me of something else that I once heard from Calvinist: Words don’t have meaning. Meanings have words.

16

Very nice, but of course words do have meanings, which will of course vary according to context, though only within the limits of their semantic range. (This assumes language competence on the part of both parties, speaker/writer and listener/reader.) In certain contexts there may be little or even no difference in meaning between the particular words mentioned here, but each has its own semantic range, so only in a given context (or maybe in no context) may one be substituted for another without semantic distortion. Context is all, I am fond of saying, but of course it’s not true. There are the words themselves.

When it comes to glosses and definitions, often the proffered gloss applies to the meaning of the glossed word in a different context, and so cannot be used to elucidate the meaning of the glossed word in its current context. This applies especially to homolingual (“L2”) glosses.

Sorry to be so unaphoristic.

I learn from the urban dictionary that LSK means “to run away and make out.” At this point I shall run away, and Markos can make out my meaning.

17

Markos, that was me who said that, and I still stand by it. mwh, I didn’t mean (nor does Markos) that words are irrelevant, but that words are merely instruments to express concepts that already exist in reality. It’s not that words exist and then we assign meanings to them, but rather the reverse, i.e. meanings exist and so we assign words to them. Trust me, it makes more sense after a couple of beers. :laughing:

What I was expressing is that I don’t think it’s really helpful to create fine distinctions between words like compassion, mercy, and pity and then try to transfer those categories to Greek words. If we can have disagreements about the precise meanings of those 3 words now in 2015 as native English speakers, and we probably all use them differently, then I’m confident that the same situation existed in the 1st century with people using Koine Greek as a second language. That’s why I said context overrides the ''A means ____ which is not the same as B, which is yet distinct from C". A great example of this is the pages that have been written about the use of αγαπω and φιλω at the end of the gospel of John.

18

Agreed, of course. The pity (but not the compassion) is that we need to say such obvious things.

EDIT Well perhaps I don’t quite agree. You say “It’s not that words exist and then we assign meanings to them.” Well and good, from the production end of things. But when we read texts, the words on the page exist before we assign meaning to them. The meaning will depend on our understanding of the words in their given context.

But please don’t go explaining what you meant, which I understand perfectly well, even without the benefit of a couple of beers. If there’s anything I’ve said on this thread (or others) that you disagree with, we can discuss, and I can say “That is not what I meant at all; that is not it, at all.”

19

I don’t think there’s any disagreement between us, mwh. A speaker/writer starts with ideas in his mind which are put into words, and a reader/hearer starts with those words and works back to the ideas. You hit the nail on the head: the danger of obsessing over individual words fades as one gets more and more fluent in the language and can actually read it like you said. It’s one of the byproducts of the resources we have available today like interlinears and such that there are people who really don’t know the language that can find meanings hidden in the text that someone reading normally wouldn’t. If you have time this is a comical video of someone using modern resources without any knowledge of Hebrew to completely destroy the intended meaning of the original authors: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuriGgeg18k

20

Thanks for everyone’s input. I apologize for not checking in more frequently.