In this article, we will attempt to address why some of God’s punishments that are described in the Old Testament were so severe for seemingly relatively minor infractions, such as the following:

  • Gathering wood on the Sabbath day (Numbers 15:32-36)
  • Not being obedient to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
  • Physically or verbally abusing a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17; Leviticus 20:9a)
  • Verbally abusing a prophet of God (2 Kings 2:23-24)
  • Looking into the ark of the Lord (1 Samuel 6:19)

[Note:  When we quote Scripture in this article, we use the wording in the New King James Version of the Bible, except when indicated otherwise or when we are quoting a source that uses a different translation.]

Gathering Wood on the Sabbath Day

Numbers 15:32-36 states,

Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.  And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation.  They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him.  Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.”  So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

John Gill’s Exposition on the Whole Bible speculates that the man mentioned in this scripture was put to death for his transgression because he would not desist in gathering sticks, but this scripture provides no support for this point of view.  Furthermore, none of the other Bible commentaries that we consulted in this regard share Gill’s point of view.  In any case, Gill declares,

[T]hey found a man that gathered sticks on the sabbath day. . .  and binding them in bundles for fuel; and this was done on the sabbath day. . . . And they that found him gathering sticks,…. ]They] admonished him, . . . but he would not desist; wherefore they brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. . . . And they put him in . . . a certain prison in the camp. . . .because it was not declared what should be done to him: that is, what kind of death he should die,  . . . though some think it was a matter of doubt whether gathering of sticks was a breach of the sabbath, or at least such a breach of it as required death; and the answer of the Lord seems to confirm this sense. . . . And the Lord said unto Moses, . . .  the man shall surely be put to death; for as no fire was to be made throughout their habitations on a sabbath day, gathering sticks for such a purpose was a work that was a violation of the sabbath, punishable with death. . . .

Most of the Bible commentaries that we checked share a viewpoint on Numbers 15:32-36 that is similar to that of Barnes’ Notes on the Whole Bible, which expresses the belief that the punishment was so severe because the man presumptuously violated the Fourth Commandment pertaining to keeping the Sabbath day holy.   Barnes says,

Moses mentions here . . . the first open transgression and its punishment in order to exemplify the laws which he is laying down. The offence of Sabbath-breaking was one for which there could be no excuse. . . . Transgression of [this law] was . . . a presumptuous sin, and was punished accordingly.

Death had indeed been assigned as the penalty (Exodus 31:14; Exodus 35:2); but it had not been determined how that death was to be inflicted.

With regard to the two scripture references cited by Barnes: Exodus 31:14a admonishes, “You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death. . . .”  Likewise, Exodus 35:2 warns, “Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh day shall be a holy day for you, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”

Similar to Gill, John Calvin’s Commentaries on the Bible takes the position that the man’s gross contempt of the Fourth Commandment was the reason for the harsh punishment.  Calvin states,

[B]y the death of one man the obligation of the Sabbath was sanctioned, so that it might henceforth be held in greater reverence. . . . From the punishment, . . . we may infer that the criminal himself had not erred through inadvertence, but in gross contempt of the Law, so as to think nothing of subverting and corrupting all things sacred. Sometimes, indeed, God has severely avenged inconsideration in the pollution of holy things; but it is probable that He would not have commanded this man to be stoned, unless he had been convicted of willful crime.

The following explanation in The Pulpit Commentaries also expresses the viewpoint that the man showed contempt for the Fourth Commandment:

The first thought of many on reading the narrative may be, “What severity for such a little offense!” But the more it is looked at the greater the offence appears. There would have been more to say for the man if the temptation had come from some great thing. If a fortune or a kingdom had been in question, then there would have been some plausibly sufficient motive for a great transgression; but to break such a commandment, to run counter to the conduct of the whole camp for a handful of sticks, does it not show how proud-hearted the man was, how utterly careless of all and any of God’s regulations? . . . If it was a little thing to do, it was just as little a thing to be left undone. Small as it was, it showed the state of the man’s heart, that corroding and hopeless leprosy within, which left no other course but to cut him off from the people.

Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible, like Barnes, Calvin, and The Pulpit Commentaries, expresses the belief that the man was put to death because of his tacit contempt of God and the violation was done presumptuously.  Henry’s explanation is as follows:

The offence was the gathering of sticks on the sabbath day. . . , which, it is probable, were designed to make a fire of, whereas they were commanded to bake . . . what they had occasion for the day before (Exodus 16:23). This seemed but a small offence, but it was a violation of the law of the sabbath, and so was a tacit contempt of the Creator, to whose honour the sabbath was dedicated, and an incursion upon the whole law. . . . And it appears by the context to have been done presumptuously, and in affront both of the law and to the Law-maker. . . .

Likewise, Peter Pett’s Commentary on the Bible theorizes that the man’s violation of the Sabbath was deliberate and defiant of the Fourth Commandment.  Pett states,

The example is given of a man found gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. . . . Such an act was deliberate, was against what he knew to be God’s requirement, and was done in defiance of the Law . . . . No one had ever yet been punished for it and he probably felt that he could get away with it. . . . It could not be allowed to go unpunished, and the punishment had to be severe.

Although all the Bible commentaries that we have cited speculate as to the reason for the harsh punishment of the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath day, the reason given by most of them – that the man had presumptuously violated the Fourth Commandment and/or he had violated the Commandment as a result of his contempt of God – seems to be plausible, since it is doubtful that God would have required that the man be punished so severely if he had inadvertently or absentmindedly violated the Sabbath day.

Not Being Obedient to Parents

This matter is addressed in Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which declares,

If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’  Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear.

Based upon earlier verses (10-14) in the same chapter of Deuteronomy, Gill hypothesizes that this scripture pertains specifically to the sons of women who had been taken captive by the Israelites and subsequently married Israelite men.  Furthermore, Gill believes that the punishment was applicable only to sons who were at least 13 years of age and who were not blind, deaf, or dumb.  According to Gill,

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son – [T]his law . . . relates to the marriage of a woman taken captive, because often from such marriages wicked and refractory children have sprung; . . . the character of such a son follows, and by which it may be known that he is stubborn and rebellious; stubborn in his nature, and rebellious in his actions; behaves contrary to the laws of God, and the instructions of his parents; what he should do, that he does not; and what he should not do, that he does; will not do what is commanded him, and will do what is forbidden him, notwithstanding all counsels, admonitions, and corrections given him. . . .

[W]ill not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother – [The son] is disobedient to the commands of either of them . . . and, when they have chastened him, will not hearken to them; when they have reproved him by words, and corrected him with blows. . . .

[I]s stubborn and rebellious – [He has] an obstinate disposition, will have his own will and way, is perverse and refractory; honours not, but despises his parents, and is disobedient to their commands, unruly and ungovernable. . . . [However, such children] must be neither dumb, nor blind, nor deaf; . . . and not a child or a little one, for that is not comprehended in the commands; he must be according to them thirteen years of age and one day. . . .

It is doubtful that Gill is correct that the scripture in question pertains specifically to the sons of captive women who have married Hebrew men.  The previous verses to which Gill alludes are separated from verses 18-21 by several verses that pertain to the rights of the firstborn child, if a man has two wives, so there is no compelling reason to think verses 18-21 pertain specifically to the sons of captive women.

With regard to the ages of the sons to whom verses 18-21 pertain, David Guzik’s Commentary on the Bible asserts, “This does not mean a small child, or even a young teen – but a son past the age of accountability, who sets himself in determined rebellion against his father and mother.”  Guzik’s explanation suggests that the children to whom verses 18-21 pertain might need to be at least a year or two older than the age of thirteen mentioned by Gill.

The following comments by Henry express the belief that the severe punishment was applicable only if the son had sufficient mental capacity to understand the impropriety of his actions, and emphasize that the parents alone could not make the decision that their son be put to death:

How the criminal is here described: He is a stubborn and rebellious son (Deuteronomy 21:18). No child was to fare the worse for the weakness of his capacity, the slowness or dulness [sic] of his understanding, but for his wilfulness [sic] and obstinacy. If he carry himself proudly and insolently towards his parents, contemn their authority, slight their reproofs and admonitions, disobey the express commands they give him for his own good, hate to be reformed by the correction they give him, shame their family, grieve their hearts, waste their substance, and threaten to ruin their estate by riotous living–this is a stubborn and rebellious son. He is particularly supposed (Deuteronomy 21:20) to be a glutton or a drunkard. This intimates either, (1.) That these were sins which his parents did in a particular manner warn him against, and therefore that in these instances there was a plain evidence that he did not obey their voice. . . . Or, (2.) That his being a glutton and a drunkard was the cause of his insolence and obstinacy towards his parents.

Calvin suggests that the severity of the punishment is due to fact that the sons to whom the scripture alludes have been repeatedly violating the Fifth Commandment by not honoring their father and mother.  Calvin’s explanation is as follows:

Moses declares that those [children] are deserving of death who are of such a stubborn and intractable disposition as to reject the authority of their father and mother, and to hold them in contempt. Whence also we infer what it is to honor our father and mother, for the punishment is only denounced for the transgression of the Commandment. When, therefore, the law delivers over to death all who contumaciously [i.e., stubbornly] rebel against the discipline of their parents, it follows that they have refused them their due honor.

Pett’s not only emphasizes the negative effects of such sons’ extremely adverse behavior on society, but also stresses that the severe punishment was administered only after serious deliberation.  According to Pett,

This [scripture] does not refer to the normal rows that can occur in the best of families. If necessary, that could have been dealt with by a severe beating. There was no limit to a father’s right to have his son beaten as long as he did not die. This refers to a son who had broken all the rules of society laid down by his parents, who was destroying the family name, and making constant problems for them in their relationships with the tribe. He had become wild and indisciplined [sic], and broken the covenant constantly, becoming a menace to society and uncontrollable. Though they had chastened him, and such chastening could be pretty severe . . ., it had not worked. All efforts to control him had proved useless. He had stubbornly gone on in his rebellious way causing trouble and concern not only for his parents but for the society in which he lived. He was a menace to all.

For a father and mother to agree together to hand their son over to the authorities in those days (note that the witness of both was required) was the sign of how bad things were. They themselves would be publicly admitting their inability to control their own son. They would do it in this case for the sake of society. He could no longer be allowed to wreak havoc on everyone, and they could no longer act as his guarantee. They were left without any options.

The following comments by The Pulpit Commentaries provide additional insight with regard to the enforcement associated with this matter::

This is a very remarkable provision. It is based on the well-known fact that there are some who need a strong deterrent to keep them from being a plague and peril to a State, and also on the all-important principle, that whoever is a pest and nuisance in the home, is the bane of the commonwealth to which he belongs. . . . [Capital punishment] could only be inflicted with the sanction of the elders of the city; the consent of both parents was required ere he could be brought before them; and they (the parents) were expected to be able to say that they had exhausted every known means of reclaiming him before they brought him to that tribunal. It is evident that the law is enacted with the intention of being so deterrent that it may never need to be put into execution. And thus indeed it seems to have proved. For there is no known instance in Jewish history of its having been carried out.

Thus, during Old Testament times, sons of a certain age (probably, in their mid-teens or older) who were incorrigible, as evidenced by their consistently stubborn and rebellious behavior, needed to be severely punished.  Importantly, however, the death punishment could not be determined by the parents alone, so the punishment was not likely to be administered indiscriminately.  Nevertheless, the extreme degree of the punishment (i.e., death) seems to be excessive by the standards of our society today.

Physically or Verbally Abusing a Parent

We will focus on the following three scriptures that pertain to this matter:

Exodus 21:15: [H]e who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Exodus 21:17: [H]e who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Leviticus 20:9a: For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death.

Although Calvin comments on these scriptures, he does not discuss why such harsh punishment was necessary.  Calvin states,

If . . . any one [sic] had struck his father or mother with his fist, or with a stick, the punishment of such an act of madness was the same as for murder. And, assuredly, it is an abominable and monstrous thing for a son not to hesitate to assault those from whom he has received his life; nor can it be but that impunity accorded to so foul a crime must straightway produce cruel barbarism. The second law avenges not only violence done to parents, but also, abusive words, which soon proceed to grosser insults and atrocious contempt. Still, if any one [sic] should have lightly let drop some slight reproach, as is often the case [in] a quarrel, this severe punishment was not to be inflicted upon such, all inconsiderate piece of impertinence: and the word . . . from which the participle used by Moses is derived, not only means to reproach, but also to curse, as well as to esteem lightly, and to despise. Whilst, therefore, not every insult, whereby the reverence due to parents was violated, received the punishment of death, still God would have that impious pride, which would subvert the first principles of nature, held in abhorrence. But, inasmuch as it might seem hard that a word, however unworthy of a dutiful son, should be the cause of death; this objection is met, by what is added by God in Leviticus, “his blood shall be upon him, because he hath cursed his father or mother:” as if He would put a stop to what men might otherwise presume to allege in mitigation of the severity of the punishment.

The following by Henry indicate that, under certain circumstances, children who physically or verbally abuse their parents are essentially incorrigible:

It is here made a capital crime, to be punished with death, for children either, 1. To strike their parents (Exodus 21:15) so as either to draw blood or to make the place struck black and blue. Or, 2. To curse their parents (Exodus 21:17), if they profaned any name of God in doing it. . . . Those are perfectly lost to all virtue, and abandoned to all wickedness, that have broken through the bonds of filial reverence and duty to such a degree as in word or action to abuse their own parents.

With specific regard to Exodus 21:15, Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible  regards the physical abuse of a parent is a very serious offence.  Poole asserts,

The mere smiting of [a parent], to wit, wilfully [sic] and dangerously. Nor will any think this law too severe, that considers that this is an act full of horrid impiety against God, who hath so expressly and emphatically commanded children to honour their parents; of highest and most unnatural ingratitude, and utterly destructive to human society.

And, the following comments by The Pulpit Commentaries imply that even the verbal abuse of a parent is a very serious sin:

Blasphemy against God, and imprecations upon parents, were the only two sins of the tongue which the law expressly required to be punished with death. . . The severity of the sentence indicates that in God’ s sight such sins are of the deepest dye [i.e., the worst sort].

Pett agrees with both Poole and the Pulpit Commentaries.  He suggests that although not every such circumstance would necessitate the death penalty, both physical abuse and verbal abuse are more serious than might otherwise be supposed.  According to Pett,

In a patriarchal society the leader was father of the clan, and then authority went downwards to the fathers of sub-clans or family groups until the lowest authority was reached, the father of the family. Each was seen, within his sphere, as standing, as it were, along with his wife, in the place of God. That is why the command to honour father and mother received such prominence. . . . To smite such was like striking a judge or even God. It was to hit at recognised [sic] authority and demanded the death penalty. By this the authority of the parents was firmly established. It is the principle that is important. Not every father would demand the death penalty for his son; circumstances would be taken into account.

The word for ‘reviling’ or ‘cursing’ [in Exodus 21:17] is very strong, far stronger than just grumbling or complaining about, or even railing at. . . . It suggests intention to do grievous harm. This is spoken of someone rebelling against all authority.

In our society today, being physically or verbally abusive to a parent, although not regarded as an insignificant matter, is also not generally regarded as a very serious matter that necessitates a death penalty, provided that serious physical harm is not involved.  With regard to what the focal verses say about the killing of a child who has been physically or verbally abusive to a parent, the primary problem is that the Bible does not provide clarifying criteria such as the age of the child at the time of the abuse, the extent of the abuse, or whether the punishment is applicable to even a first-time offense, each of which might help to explain why the punishment was so severe.  And, the explanations provided by Bible commentaries with regard to why it was necessary in such matters for the punishment to be death for the abusive child seem to be basically conjectural.

Verbally Abusing a Prophet of God

One of the most controversial incidents that resulted in severe punishment does not seem to have involved a violation of any of the God’s Commandments.  This incident is recorded in 2 Kings 2:23-24, which reads as follows:

And he [i.e., Elisha] went up from there [i.e., Jericho] to Bethel.  And as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead!  Go up, you baldhead!”  So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord.  And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

A footnote to verse 23 in the New International Version of the Bible (NIV) states, “By calling Elisha ‘baldhead,’ the youths . . . expressed . . . utter disdain for the Lord’s representative. . . .”

Likewise, in their book entitled When Critics Ask, Norman Geisler, Ph.D., and Thomas Howe, M.A., state on page 191 that what the youths did “was no minor offense,” for they “held God’s prophet in contempt.”  Both of these statements may be correct, but the scripture itself does not indicate that the youths knew Elisha was God’s prophet.

Geisler and Howe surmise that the youths “were wicked young men, comparable to a modern street gang.”  On page 192 of their same book, they speculate, “Elisha’s action was designed to strike fear in the hearts of any other such gang members.  If these young gang members were not afraid to mock a venerable man of God such as Elisha, then they would have been a threat to the lives of all God’s people.”

Gleason L. Archer expresses a similar opinion.   He states on page 205 of his book entitled Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties,

It was a situation of serious public danger, quite as grave as the large youth gangs that roam the ghetto sections of our modern American cities.  If these young hoodlums were ranging about in packs of fifty or more, derisive toward respectable adults and ready to mock even a well-known man of God, there is no telling what violence they might have inflicted on the citizenry . . ., had they been allowed to continue their riotous course.

Archer goes on to theorize,

Perhaps it was for this reason that God saw fit to put forty-two of them to death in this spectacular fashion (there is no evidence that Elisha himself, in imposing a curse, prayed for this specific mode of punishment), in order to strike terror into other youth gangs that were infesting the city and to make them realize that neither Yahweh Himself nor any of His anointed prophets were to be threatened or treated with contempt.

Geisler and Howe concur.  On page 192 of their previously-mentioned book, they declare,

It was not Elisha who took their lives, but God who alone could have providentially directed the bears to attack them.  It is evident that by mocking this man of God, these young men were revealing their true attitudes toward God Himself.  Such contempt for the Lord was punishable by death.  The Scriptures do not say that Elisha prayed for this kind of punishment.  It was clearly an act of God in judgment upon this impious gang.

Although Archer, Geisler, and Howe express the belief that the youths were killed by the bears, at least several other sources give no such indication.  The King James, NKJ, and NIV translations of the Bible all say the youths were mauled or torn by the bears, but do not say the youths were killed.  The translation by Strong’s Concordance of the Bible of the Hebrew word baqa that is used to describe the damage done by the bears indicates that the youths were ripped or torn. The word baqa does not infer injuries so severe that they would result in death.  If the youths were not killed by the bears, it is easier to accept the position that the punishment fit the crime, especially if the crime was more than just simple teasing or name-calling.

Looking into the Ark of the Lord

In regard to this matter, we will focus on 1 Samuel 6:19, which says,

Then He [i.e., God] struck the men of Beth Shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. He struck . . . seventy men of the people, and the people lamented because the Lord had struck the people with a great slaughter.

Guzik explains this verse of scripture, as follows:

The Ark of the Covenant was a box . . . containing sacred things. . . . It was only to be touched and handled by specific Levites from the family of Kohath, and even they were commanded to not touch the ark itself. . . . But the men of Beth Shemesh sinned by not only touching the ark, but also looking into it inappropriately.

Henry speculates as to the reason why the men disregarded what God had commanded.  According to Henry,

Every Israelite had heard great talk of the ark, and had been possessed with a profound veneration for it; but they had been told that it was lodged within a veil, and even the high priest himself might not look upon it but once a year, and then through a cloud of incense. Perhaps this made many say (as we are apt to covet that which is forbidden) what a great deal they would give for a sight of it. Some of these Beth-shemites, we may suppose, for that reason, rejoiced to see the ark (1 Samuel 6:13) more than for the sake of the public. Yet this did not content them; they might see it, but they would go further, they would take off the covering, which it is likely was nailed or screwed on, and look into it, under pretence [sic] of seeing whether the Philistines had not taken the two tables out of it or some way damaged them, but really to gratify a sinful curiosity of their own, which intruded into those things that God had thought fit to conceal from them. . . . That which made this looking into the ark a great sin was that it proceeded from a very low and mean opinion of the ark. The familiarity they had with it upon this occasion bred contempt and irreverence. Perhaps they presumed upon their being priests; but the dignity of the ministerial office will be so far from excusing that it will aggravate a careless and irreverent treatment of holy things.

The Pulpit Commentaries adds the following additional perspective as to the reason for such severe punishment by God:

[T]he men of Beth-shemesh, as a city of priests, must have known that death was the penalty of unhallowed gazing at holy things (Numbers 4:20), and it is more than probable that those who were smitten were priests, because in them it would be a heinous sin; for it was a repetition of that contempt for religion and its symbols which had been condemned so sternly in Eli’s sons. The mere seeing of the ark was no sin, and had given the people only joy (1 Samuel 6:13), but as soon as they had received it, the priests ought to have covered it with a vail (Numbers 4:5). To leave it without a vail was neglectful; to pry into it was sacrilege.

With regard to how many men were slain by God as a result of looking into the ark, a number of translations of the Bible state that more than 50,000 men, not just 70, were slain by Him.  However, a majority of the Bible commentaries that we consulted indicate that the much larger number probably resulted from a copyist’s error.

Poole asserts in this regard,

Josephus the Jew, and the Hebrew doctors, and many others, contend that only seventy persons were slain; which though it seem [sic] but a small number, yet might justly be called a great slaughter, either for the quality of the persons slain, or for the greatness and extraordinariness of the stroke; or because it was a great number, considering the smallness of the place, and the sadness of the occasion.

Regardless of how many men were slain by God because they looked into the ark, the fact is that we can only speculate as to why they did so.  However, we do know that God had previously stated that the penalty for looking into the ark would be death.  Nevertheless, as with the previous incidents, the penalty seems to have been more severe than what most people in our society today would regard as appropriate.

Conclusion

It may be difficult for many people to understand why it was sometimes necessary during the Old Testament era for God’s punishments to be extremely harsh.  We may not think that certain violations of God’s Commandments, such as those in several of the situations that we have discussed in this article, are serious enough to necessitate that the offender(s) be put to death, but we as humans do not always have the same perspective as God.  In Isaiah 55:8, God declares, “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways.”

As we conclude in our article entitled “Is God Really Omnipotent and Omniscient?” (which can be read by clicking on its title), God is omniscient, so He knows what is appropriate punishment for sin.  However, God is also loving, merciful, and gracious, as is taught throughout the Bible (see the Appendix that follows).  In fact, that is why God sent Jesus Christ to die as the ultimate sacrifice to atone for the sins of those who trust in Jesus as their Savior (see John 3:16).  Therefore, we should not only trust that God will always do what is right, but also that the punishments which He requires are just.

Appendix

Selected Scriptures Regarding God’s Love, Mercy, and Grace

God’s Love:*

  • John 3:16
  • Romans 5:8
  • Romans 8:39
  • 2 Corinthians 13:11
  • Ephesians 2:4-5
  • 1 John 3:1
  • 1 John 4:8-10. 16

God’s Mercy:*

  • Deuteronomy 4:31
  • 1 Chronicles 16:34
  • 2 Chronicles 7:3
  • Psalm 86:15
  • Psalm 100:5
  • Psalm 118:29
  • Nehemiah 9:31
  • Jeremiah 33:11
  • Ephesians 2:4-5

God’s Grace:

  • 2 Chronicles 30:9
  • Nehemiah 9:17, 31
  • Psalm 86:15
  • Psalm 103:8
  • Psalm 111:4
  • Psalm 116:5
  • Psalm 145:8
  • Ephesians :8-9

* Some versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew word checed in the Old Testament as love, whereas other versions, including the New King James Version, which we have used to quote scriptures in this article, translate the Hebrew word as mercy. Therefore, most of the scriptures that are listed under the category of God’s Mercy could instead be included under the category of God’s Love.