Please What is the word "Passion" actually referring to ?

peter2 · Jan 10, 2026

To be more precise : Why is a same word used for something that commonly points to deep emotion at men's and on the other hand, that looks stemming from the deeply determined will (without emotion ?) at God's ?
1. Could the word "Passion" point to a divine reciprocating of the word : "worship", since a worship is a human practice, and as for God the Son, it is relevant to use another word ?
2. Could it point as well to Passover in second meaning, a kind of passage from slavery (Egypt, sin, the inside of maternal womb, etc..) to utter freedom (Desert, weaning of sin, weaning of maternal, cutting of the umbilical cord, etc..)
3. something else

PloverWing · Jan 10, 2026

In English, "passion" means two rather different things: 1) suffering; 2) strong emotion. As I understand it, the "suffering" meaning goes back to the underlying Greek πάσχω and Latin passio. I'm not sure whether the "strong emotion" meaning also goes back to the Greek πάσχω or whether it's a later development in English; perhaps someone with more Greek knowledge can weigh in. One discussion of the development of the English word is here: Passion - Etymology, Origin & Meaning

In theology, "Christ's passion" refers to Christ's suffering.

As far as I know, the word "passion" is unrelated to the English word "paschal" and the French word "Pâques"; the latter two come from the Hebrew word for Passover.

peter2 · Jan 10, 2026

PloverWing said:
In English, "passion" means two rather different things: 1) suffering; 2) strong emotion. As I understand it, the "suffering" meaning goes back to the underlying Greek πάσχω and Latin passio.

Hi PloverWing, thank you. It's precious information you give me.

PloverWing said:
In theology, "Christ's passion" refers to Christ's suffering.

Indeed in french, the suffering meaning relates only to Christ's. Don't you think it could exist some relationship between the1) and 2) meanings that might converge ? As for greek or latin i have no knowledge of any, and thus fail to interpret what you write about

I 'm going to have a look at your link after. Thank you again

PloverWing said:
As far as I know, the word "passion" is unrelated to the English word "paschal" and the French word "Pâques"; the latter two come from the Hebrew word for Passover.

It's just another of my hypotheses. Catholic Nicene creed in Latin tells : "passus et sepultus est". "Passus" must be the adjective of the noun "passio" you just learnt me. You see, from a catholic view, it would make a bit more likely the hypothesis "passus", that's tranlated as "suffering", might be related to passion, since it's used just when the Passion takes place, that is, 3 days before Easter

JSRG · Jan 11, 2026

peter2 said:
To be more precise : Why is a same word used for something that commonly points to deep emotion at men's and on the other hand, that looks stemming from the deeply determined will (without emotion ?) at God's ?
1. Could the word "Passion" point to a divine reciprocating of the word : "worship", since a worship is a human practice, and as for God the Son, it is relevant to use another word ?
2. Could it point as well to Passover in second meaning, a kind of passage from slavery (Egypt, sin, the inside of maternal womb, etc..) to utter freedom (Desert, weaning of sin, weaning of maternal, cutting of the umbilical cord, etc..)
3. something else

The word "passion" in English goes back to the Latin word passio. This word originally meant suffering, which was the meaning that came into English. However, later on--way later on--it gained the additional meaning of "strong emotion". This new meaning eventually overtook the original meaning in both English and various other languages to the point that the original meaning of suffering is only in reference to that specifically of Jesus (and in English is usually denoted by capitalizing the word).

This sort of word meaning shifting happens plenty of times. Nowadays, awful means something that's really bad. Originally it meant awe-inspiring, but over time it shifted. Similarly, egregious (very bad) originally meant very good--and in some languages like Spanish, this original meaning is retained. Or for a religious instance, "ghost" originally meant "spirit", hence why older translations of the Bible like the KJV said "Holy Ghost" and frequently used the phrase "gave up the ghost" (meaning to die--one gives up one's spirit/soul). Over time, however, the term "ghost" narrowed into its more modern time as referring specifically to dead spirits, hence why "Holy Ghost" for the most part shifted to "Holy Spirit" to better fit the modern definitions. Maybe the same thing should have been done with "passion", but maybe the term in reference to Jesus was too engrained to shift.

So trying to analyze how the meaning of "deep emotion" relates to the Passion of Jesus is to try to take a meaning that appears to have only developed over a thousand years after the Passion.

As for Passover, that didn't come from the word passion. In fact, the word Passover didn't even exist until the 16th century. It first shows up in Tyndale's bible translation as a way to translate Pesakh and Pascha, the Hebrew and Greek words for Passover (the former found in the Old Testament, the latter in the New Testament). The origin of the word Passover, however, was simply a combination of the separate words "pass" and "over" (or, as they were originally spelled, "passe" and "ouer", so the original spelling of Passover was actually passeouer). No relation to the word passion. In case people were wondering how Pesakh/Pascha was translated into English before this term got created, it usually was translated either as a transliteration (like pasch, pask, phase) or as Easter. "Passover" gained popularity because it was what the King James Version used, as that translation left a major mark on the English language.

To also reply to part of the second message:

peter2 said:
It's just another of my hypotheses. Catholic Nicene creed in Latin tells : "passus et sepultus est". "Passus" must be the adjective of the noun "passio" you just learnt me. You see, from a catholic view, it would make a bit more likely the hypothesis "passus", that's tranlated as "suffering", might be related to passion, since it's used just when the Passion takes place, that is, 3 days before Easter

Passus is not an adjective of passio, though it is related. The Latin noun passio (suffering) comes from the Latin verb patior (to suffer). Passus is the perfect passive participle form of patior, and when combined with "est", into "passus est", it turns into the third person singular masculine perfect conjugation of patior... which is a convoluted way of saying it means "he suffered". The Nicene Creed adds "et sepultus" between the passus and est, which adds in "and was buried". So "passus et sepultus est" translates out to "he suffered and was buried."

Of course, just to make things even more convoluted, passus has two other, unrelated meanings, both unrelated to patior. Passus can be the perfect passive participle of a completely separate verb, pando, which means to spread out. Passus can also be a noun that means "step". These two meanings have nothing to do with the "suffered" meaning (all three have different etymologies from one another), but just ended up with the same spelling by coincidence. Sort of like how in English, wind can be a noun referring to a breeze, but can also be a verb referring to move in a circular or spiraling motion. Despite the identical spellings of wind--though different pronunciations, oddly--these words have totally different meanings and etymologies.

prodromos · Jan 11, 2026

In Greek, the "passions" refers to our fleshly failings. Anger, lust, greed and pride etc. are all human passions and are opposites to the virtues.

peter2 · Jan 11, 2026

JSRG said:
The word "passion" in English goes back to the Latin word passio. This word originally meant suffering, which was the meaning that came into English. However, later on--way later on--it gained the additional meaning of "strong emotion". This new meaning eventually overtook the original meaning in both English and various other languages to the point that the original meaning of suffering is only in reference to that specifically of Jesus (and in English is usually denoted by capitalizing the word).

This sort of word meaning shifting happens plenty of times. Nowadays, awful means something that's really bad. Originally it meant awe-inspiring, but over time it shifted. Similarly, egregious (very bad) originally meant very good--and in some languages like Spanish, this original meaning is retained. Or for a religious instance, "ghost" originally meant "spirit", hence why older translations of the Bible like the KJV said "Holy Ghost" and frequently used the phrase "gave up the ghost" (meaning to die--one gives up one's spirit/soul). Over time, however, the term "ghost" narrowed into its more modern time as referring specifically to dead spirits, hence why "Holy Ghost" for the most part shifted to "Holy Spirit" to better fit the modern definitions. Maybe the same thing should have been done with "passion", but maybe the term in reference to Jesus was too engrained to shift.

Thank you, JSRG, for so much informative information.
I already made myself the following assumption (see quote below), copied/pasted from a message i sent to John Clay, on CF, through which words meanings have evolved from a starting point in Genesis, that would be the word "nudity/naked".
This word would actually bear pure subjective significance. It would be some sort of ancestor for all words whose sense has changed over through human history.
So we seemingly have made the same constat.

I wonder whether there's not a possible response from Genesis, which i propose to you, however partial

I mean :
Let's consider the tree of knowledge of good and evil did bring a knowledge, but not an important one to Adam and Eve (that is, their nudity would be shameful)

Now, if the knowledge of their nudity induced them into feeling shameful, we may wonder whether this shame was adding or substracting to their self-awareness.

Another questions they might wonder is whether :

Their nudity was or not the deepest origin of the shame ? Couldn't it rather stem directly from the knowledge of this nudity, that would have induced them into feeling some guilt. Indeed, it seems to me the same nudity they're first not ashamed with becomes source of their shame then.

And, also, that the word "naked" bore no significance before the first sin. Neither does God use it before. Nor does the Verb in Jn 1.

So, does the word "naked" bear any significance but subjective ?

Finally,
i wonder whether this word, "naked", made Adam and Eve wealthier or poorer, as regard their knowledge
And whether the New Adam didn't start his incarnation unaware of its subjective and subsequently impoverishing significance, thus making him straightly far more knowing than the first man

JSRG said:
So trying to analyze how the meaning of "deep emotion" relates to the Passion of Jesus is to try to take a meaning that appears to have only developed over a thousand years after the Passion.

Agreed, but
From what i preceedingly wrote i'd thus say, "trying to analyze how the meaning of "deep emotion" relates to the Passion of Jesus" is also a means for me to try and thwart a little what could be some worldly traps of the language. Welcome into paranoland !

JSRG said:
Passus is not an adjective of passio, though it is related. The Latin noun passio (suffering) comes from the Latin verb patior (to suffer). Passus is the perfect passive participle form of patior, and when combined with "est", into "passus est", it turns into the third person singular masculine perfect conjugation of patior... which is a convoluted way of saying it means "he suffered". The Nicene Creed adds "et sepultus" between the passus and est, which adds in "and was buried". So "passus et sepultus est" translates out to "he suffered and was buried."

Of course, just to make things even more convoluted, passus has two other, unrelated meanings, both unrelated to patior. Passus can be the perfect passive participle of a completely separate verb, pando, which means to spread out. Passus can also be a noun that means "step". These two meanings have nothing to do with the "suffered" meaning (all three have different etymologies from one another), but just ended up with the same spelling by coincidence. Sort of like how in English, wind can be a noun referring to a breeze, but can also be a verb referring to move in a circular or spiraling motion. Despite the identical spellings of wind--though different pronunciations, oddly--these words have totally different meanings and etymologies.

This is the reason why i thank you to give all those details. Because as for me, however distinct might look all these meanings' origin, i fail to conclude with certitude they are

com7fy8 · Tuesday at 8:11 PM

peter2 said:
Could the word "Passion" point to a divine reciprocating of the word : "worship", since a worship is a human practice, and as for God the Son, it is relevant to use another word ?

I do not recall the word "passion" being used in the Bible in relation to Jesus carrying His cross and being crucified and dying on the cross for us. So, even if you know the Greek word for "Passion", you are studying a word that is not used in Scripture to refer to Jesus going through that horrible stuff.

And what it could mean to humans can be different than it would mean ***in*** Jesus.

In Jesus during that time, could what Jesus was doing be called some kind of worship - for our Heavenly Father? Well, Jesus did it in order to obey our Father, and I consider obeying God to be worshiping Him > honoring Him and putting Him first. Plus, we have how Jesus on Calvary was "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma" (in Ephesians 5:2) which to me means Jesus was sweetly delighting to our Father, in how sweetly and kindly and obediently He so suffered and died for us. Being so pleasing and delighting to our Father would, I think, be included in worship.

So, I take "the Passion" to mean He was deeply passionate in His desire to please our Father. And there's that word "passionate". So, from this I consider that if ones call that ordeal the "Passion" of Jesus, then that could have the meaning . . . included, at least . . . of Jesus being so desiring to love and please our Father while going through all He suffered and dying like He did . . . sweetly . . . deeply with all His being including His feelings and emotions.

And Jesus was doing it for us . . . in love for us. So, there was such kindness in His passion of love for us.

And it was almighty in God's own power, how Jesus obeyed and did so sweetly and kindly. So, His passion was almighty, very strong indeed.

Like I say, I can not speak for what theologians say about this, Catholic or Protestant. Each person might have something different to offer, each one contributing a part of the whole

But what is very important is that Jesus during His Passion was our example . . . for us to so sweetly please our Father and kindly love any and all people, with hope for any evil person to be forgiven and adopted as a child of God > we are commanded to so love >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

So, the meaning of the Passion . . . as our example to follow . . . is very important to include in how we understand this.

One thing I think of is how Jesus prayed, while on the cross >

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (in Luke 23:34)

In the passion almighty of Jesus Christ's heart, He desired for those people to be forgiven, and prayed this to them, right while they still were hating and torturing and murdering Jesus who is God's own Son. So, I see how Jesus cared more about His enemies, than about how He might be physically suffering. So, our cross that Jesus means for us to carry could include loving like how Jesus was loving . . . and praying forgiveness . . . on the cross.

PloverWing · Tuesday at 10:07 PM

com7fy8 said:
I do not recall the word "passion" being used in the Bible in relation to Jesus carrying His cross and being crucified and dying on the cross for us. So, even if you know the Greek word for "Passion", you are studying a word that is not used in Scripture to refer to Jesus going through that horrible stuff.

The word πάσχω in its various forms does occur in the Bible in reference to Jesus' suffering and death; examples include Matthew 16:21 and 17:12. It tends to be translated as "suffering" rather than "passion", probably because the common meaning of "passion" in modern English is the "emotion" meaning.

peter2 · Tuesday at 11:08 PM

com7fy8 said:
I do not recall the word "passion" being used in the Bible in relation to Jesus carrying His cross and being crucified and dying on the cross for us. So, even if you know the Greek word for "Passion", you are studying a word that is not used in Scripture to refer to Jesus going through that horrible stuff.

Neither do i, thank you.

I particularly like your comment on the whole of your message. Displays good will

I just wonder of what kind of love Jesus was loving men when crucified. Not sure his human feelings were not above these of his divine nature. Not sure even there were some true feelings of love.
I mean i wonder whether what allowed him to remain Love himself is not the love for the Father, whom he had said to be the only one to be good.
Indeed, we might understand the Father is good and loving through His giving, and sacrifying his son to men.
But Jesus himself, due to his human nature, wouldn't be good and loving men to such extent, and would just be unwillingly giving his flesh.
So that

com7fy8 said:
One thing I think of is how Jesus prayed, while on the cross >

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." (in Luke 23:34)

In the passion almighty of Jesus Christ's heart, He desired for those people to be forgiven, and prayed this to them, right while they still were hating and torturing and murdering Jesus who is God's own Son. So, I see how Jesus cared more about His enemies, than about how He might be physically suffering. So, our cross that Jesus means for us to carry could include loving like how Jesus was loving . . . and praying forgiveness . . . on the cross.

however plausible, i 'm not sure Jesus was praying the Father for His forgiveness from a feeling of love for them.
But may be, this verse Lk 23 : 34 might teach us Jesus would have felt concerned by the Father's loving of men.
Jesus himself woudn't be feeling any love for men, but, yet, would be supporting the Father's love, from his feeling of love for the Father. Thus would relate the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, through this teaming up against extreme adversity

com7fy8 · Wednesday at 8:51 AM

PloverWing said:
The word πάσχω in its various forms does occur in the Bible in reference to Jesus' suffering and death; examples include Matthew 16:21 and 17:12. It tends to be translated as "suffering" rather than "passion", probably because the common meaning of "passion" in modern English is the "emotion" meaning.

Oh-h-h > let's see > @peter2

In Matthew 16:21 He does say he will "suffer many things". And suffering includes emotional.

@PloverWing > Thank you

com7fy8 · Wednesday at 9:23 AM

peter2 said:
I just wonder of what kind of love Jesus was loving men when crucified. Not sure his human feelings were not above these of his divine nature.

Well . . . Jesus is God's own Son, and Jesus says >

"All things that the Father has are Mine." (in John 16:15)

Plus >

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father" > in John 14:9.

So, you are right, that Jesus is divine . . . "fully", the same as our Heavenly Father, no less. And while Jesus was on this earth, in His physical body, Jesus did not change to less. Because God is incapable of changing >

In God "there is no variation or shadow of turning" > in James 1:17.

Therefore, I offer, Jesus on the cross did not change from how God loves. Plus, we are commanded to follow the example > of how Jesus on Calvary was loving >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

Jesus going through all that was ***sweet*** about it, in order to please our Father. And this is our example of how to love "even" any impossible person. With God, all that is good is possible. Jesus has proven how this loving is possible, right on that cross and before while He was being hated and mocked and tortured before being nailed to the cross.

So, God in us is able to have us so loving ***in sharing with Him in us***. Jesus in us makes us this way, more and more as we grow in Jesus.

And because He is divine and not only in human love, yes He who is almighty has the power in us to have us also loving like He did, on the cross. And this is commanded, also, in the epistle of our Apostle Peter >

"Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

. . . . .'Who committed no sin,
. . . . . Nor was deceit found in His mouth':

who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously" (in 1 Peter 2:21-23)

So, how Jesus was loving, on the cross, was not human!! Plus, this is our example.

peter2 said:
Not sure even there were some true feelings of love.

God made us in His image. We have feelings in our human ways of loving. I would say, from this, that our Father does have feelings in His loving. God is almighty but feeling. Being strong does not necessarily mean you have no feelings. A major difference is how God can not be changed by evil or by nicer things of creation.

Look at Hebrews 4:15 > not only does Jesus have feelings, but He feels for us while we are going through things. And this, too, is our example

Remember how that criminal stood up for Jesus while Jesus was on the cross. And the man asked Jesus to remember him. I would say Jesus felt good about that guy trusting in Jesus for salvation. Even though Jesus was so suffering, that man trusting in Jesus meant more to Jesus, than what evil people were doing to Him. This is important, in loving, how we do not allow evil to decide how we feel and what we do and if we are generously forgiving or not.

peter2 · Wednesday at 10:31 AM

com7fy8 said:
Oh-h-h > let's see > @peter2

In Matthew 16:21 He does say he will "suffer many things". And suffering includes emotional.

@PloverWing > Thank you

i suppose so, thank you

peter2 · Wednesday at 11:07 AM

com7fy8 said:
Well . . . Jesus is God's own Son, and Jesus says >

"All things that the Father has are Mine." (in John 16:15)

Plus >

"He who has seen Me has seen the Father" > in John 14:9.

So, you are right, that Jesus is divine . . . "fully", the same as our Heavenly Father, no less. And while Jesus was on this earth, in His physical body, Jesus did not change to less. Because God is incapable of changing >

In God "there is no variation or shadow of turning" > in James 1:17.

Therefore, I offer, Jesus on the cross did not change from how God loves. Plus, we are commanded to follow the example > of how Jesus on Calvary was loving >

"And walk in love, as Christ also has loved us and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma." (Ephesians 5:2)

Jesus going through all that was ***sweet*** about it, in order to please our Father. And this is our example of how to love "even" any impossible person. With God, all that is good is possible. Jesus has proven how this loving is possible, right on that cross and before while He was being hated and mocked and tortured before being nailed to the cross.

So, God in us is able to have us so loving ***in sharing with Him in us***. Jesus in us makes us this way, more and more as we grow in Jesus.

And because He is divine and not only in human love, yes He who is almighty has the power in us to have us also loving like He did, on the cross. And this is commanded, also, in the epistle of our Apostle Peter >

"Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:

. . . . .'Who committed no sin,
. . . . . Nor was deceit found in His mouth':

who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously" (in 1 Peter 2:21-23)

So, how Jesus was loving, on the cross, was not human!! Plus, this is our example.

God made us in His image. We have feelings in our human ways of loving. I would say, from this, that our Father does have feelings in His loving. God is almighty but feeling. Being strong does not necessarily mean you have no feelings. A major difference is how God can not be changed by evil or by nicer things of creation.

Look at Hebrews 4:15 > not only does Jesus have feelings, but He feels for us while we are going through things. And this, too, is our example

Remember how that criminal stood up for Jesus while Jesus was on the cross. And the man asked Jesus to remember him. I would say Jesus felt good about that guy trusting in Jesus for salvation. Even though Jesus was so suffering, that man trusting in Jesus meant more to Jesus, than what evil people were doing to Him. This is important, in loving, how we do not allow evil to decide how we feel and what we do and if we are generously forgiving or not.

I am not particularly skilled at arguing each of the points you raise, or even at arguing at all.
I would simply respond that, in my view, your arguments and quotations do not prove that my hypothesis is unfounded.

In my opinion, your quotations can be interpreted differently, even though I do not have any evidence to support my hypothesis either.

However, I admit that this hypothesis seems more conceivable to me from my Catholic point of view.

Indeed,
since I consider it possible that there are movements/transfers of love between the persons of the Trinity, it does not seem implausible to me that the Father's love for mankind could have been put to the test through the death of his son, and that the latter, in his final moments, wanted to support his father in this trial, in order to save the love that the Father has for mankind.

I even see in the fact of telling his Father that men did not know what they were doing a probable defense against the adversary, where Jesus loved God with all his strength, with all his soul, but also by supporting him with all his intelligence.

To sum up,
it seems to me that it all depends on what kind of love we consider the Father to give to the fullest: invulnerable love (the kind, I suppose, that you believe in) or vulnerable love, the kind that involves costly sacrifice.

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Please What is the word "Passion" actually referring to ?

Ordinary life contemplative

Episcopalian

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Episcopalian

Ordinary life contemplative

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ordinary life contemplative

Ordinary life contemplative

Similar threads