Berkhof:

d. The mercy of God. Another important aspect of the goodness and love of God is His mercy or tender compassion. The Hebrew word most generally used for this is chesed. There is another word, however, which expresses a deep and tender compassion, namely, the word racham, which is beautifully rendered by “tender mercy” in our English Bible. The Septuagint and the New Testament employ the Greek word eleos to designate the mercy of God. If the grace of God contemplates man as guilty before God, and therefore in need of forgiveness, the mercy of God contemplates him as one who is bearing the consequences of sin, who is in a pitiable condition, and who therefore needs divine help. It may be defined as the goodness or love of God shown to those who are in misery or distress, irrespective of their deserts. In His mercy God reveals Himself as a compassionate God, who pities those who are in misery and is ever ready to relieve their distress. This mercy is bountiful, Deut. 5:10; Ps. 57:10; 86:5, and the poets of Israel delighted to sing of it as enduring forever, I Chron. 16:34; II Chron. 7:6; Ps. 136; Ezra 3:11. In the New Testament it is often mentioned alongside of the grace of God, especially in salutations’, I Tim. 1:2; II Tim. 1:1; Titus 1:4. We are told repeatedly that it is shown to them that fear God, Ex. 20:2; Deut. 7:9; Ps. 86:5; Luke 1:50. This does not mean, however, that it is limited to them, though they enjoy it in a special measure. God’s tender mercies are over all His works, Ps. 145:9, and even those who do not fear Him share in them, Ezek. 18:23,32; 33:11; Luke 6:35,36. The mercy of God may not be represented as opposed to His justice. It is exercised only in harmony with the strictest justice of God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ. Other terms used for it in the Bible are “pity,” “compassion,” and “lovingkindness.”

Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 72. [underlining mine.]

Breckinridge:

IV.–1. Grace, Mercy and Peace, say the Scriptures, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.¹ So that peace flows from mercy, and mercy from grace. And in another place, they carry us further still: thus, after that the kindness and love of God our Savior to men appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost.² So that God’s Goodness is the cause of his Love–his love the cause of his mercy; his mercy the cause of our salvation: and thus salvation is the effect of them all.

2. As the Goodness of God when manifested toward objects considered in their unworthiness, is called grace; and when manifested toward objects considered in their desirableness to God is called Love: so when that Goodness is manifested toward objects considered in their misery, it is called mercy: and finally, when manifested toward objects considered in their guiltiness, it is called long-suffering. Mercy, therefore, is that divine propension which leads God to succor the miserable; and is attributed to him throughout the Scriptures³ as an eternal, unalterable, necessary, active, and free attribute of his being.

3. Amongst these Perfections of God which bear upon us in the most obvious manner–and of which the evidences are most constant and conclusive, his mercy stands conspicuous. For human misery is an inheritance of the whole race, and of every individual of it–as broad as the sin which produced it at first, and which is continually increasing its bitterness. By disobedience came sin, and by sin death; and the sin and the death have passed together–through all generations and with unfaltering steps, around the circuit of the whole race. For the sin, the grace of God provides the remedy: for the misery his mercy offers the consolation and the deliverance. And in some shape or other, that mercy is exhibited to every creature that suffers–so long as the creature has not passed out of the state in which mercy is possible. But the mercy of God flows, not only from the same Goodness from which his grace flows; but, also, from the Grace itself; and Grace and Mercy, both alike have reference to sin–one regarding the unworthiness of the creature, and the other regarding the misery which that unworthiness produces. When, therefore the Grace of God is clean taken away, his mercy also is clean taken away: for it is only in proportion as sin is removed through grace, that the misery produced by sin, can be solaced by mercy. Even the infinite mercy of God, could avail nothing in removing misery without removing the cause of it: and when the cause of it, is not only given over as irremediable forever–but falls under the Justice of God, under the other aspect of sin, which we call guilt–and that even beyond the Long-suffering of God: then it is not only, so to speak, essentially impossible for the mercy of God to avail any thing for the sinning sufferer; but any attempt to do so, would involve a direct conflict of the divine Attributes.

4. For us to object that the mercy of God is not manifested in an equal degree to all his creatures, is wholly absurd. That would be of itself impossible unless the miseries of all were precisely equal, and the destinies of all not only uniform, but exactly similar; both of which suppositions are not only inconsistent with the frame of the present universe–but with that of any universe, that could fully exhibit the perfections of God. Moreover, when we consider that whatever mercy any of us receives is, in its very nature, just so much goodness which we did not deserve: and, further, that the mercy of God, of whatever kind and to whomsoever extended, must be exercised with relation to the chief end of his work of creation, of providence and of grace, and must be put forth in accordance with all the perfections of his infinite being : the folly of such repinings is shown to be surpassed only by their presumption.

5. To urge that the mercy of God ought to have led him to prevent the introduction of any suffering into the universe, or to its total extirpation after it had found an entrance, is only saying, on the first point, that God’s mercy ought to deprive itself of all possibility of making itself manifest in the universe, and that this ought to be done in subordination to the sins of men: and, on the second point, it is only saying, that God having failed in his grand design of such a universe as he proposed, but could not accomplish, ought now by an irregular and miraculous interposition to subvert the order, and the event of all things, and cure such defects of his plan and operation, as he had not, at first, foreseen and provided for: and that all things ought to be done, by God, to prevent sin from being followed by misery: the whole of which is impious.

6. If it be still further alleged–that God ought to have prevented the introduction of sin itself into the universe–and thereby excluded the possibility of suffering: in addition to what has been said before, it is obvious to reply, that this cavil of infidelity is leveled more directly at natural Religion than at Christianity; since sin and misery are actually in God’s world, and Christianity only proposes to redress them. As a blasphemous cavil against God for having acted as he has done in the matter of creation, providence and grace–perhaps before we are fully satisfied of our right to make it–and thus to assail him in his being, and all his attributes, we ought to reflect that God is at least as wise, as Powerful, and as Good, as an infidel: that he is at least as much bent on the preservation of his essential glory, and the manifestation of his declarative glory, as any infidel is; that being such a God, and working to such an end, he is as likely to be right, in the means as any infidel. Especially we ought to reflect, that what things are possible–what things are best amongst those that are possible –and amongst the best possible, which are they that on the whole God ought to prefer, are matters he may as well be trusted with as any infidel: and that–as for us–the undeniable facts of the universe,–as for example–God, creation, and salvation on one side–and sin, misery, and perdition on the other, had as well be accepted as they assuredly exist ; as that we should revolt against God because they do exist; and accomplish by that revolt, nothing, except one more proof of the things we impiously reject, and one more ground of the certainty and justice of our perdition–along with every infidel.

Robert J. Breckinridge, The Knowledge of God, (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1859), 299-301. [Some spelling modernized; footnote values modified; and underlining mine.]

______________________

¹1 Tim., i. 2.

²Titus, iii. 4, 5.

³2 Cor., i. 3; Eph., ii. 4; James, i. 13.

Zanchi:

Chap. 4.

Of the mercy of God.

The first Question.

Whether mercy be truly and properly attributed unto God.

Concerning this first question, the Stoics were of opinion that the name of mercy could by no mean be attributed to God, drawing a reason from the definition of mercy. For what is it else, say they, but weakness of mind, sadness and grief conceived upon an other’s misery and grief? and so does Cicero also define it as envy contrarily, is grief conceived of another’s prosperity. And so says Seneca also in his  book of clemency. Augustine also following in a manner the same definitions, says thus: “What is mercy but a certain compassion of another’s misery in our heart, by which we are compelled to help if we can?” and again, “Who knows not that hereof it is called mercy, for that it makes the heart miserable, grieving for another’s evil?” The like affirms Aristotle and Phavorinus. But no grief nor weakness can happen to God. For, if according to the Stoics’ opinion, it is not incident to a wise man, much less to God. But they are deceived. For God plainly calls himself merciful, and of great mercy. To the reason they bring, we make this answer: first, That it is manifest that God is not subject to grief nor weakness. But it therefore follows not, that therefore is is no mercy in God. For though man’s mercy defined by Cicero and others be a weakness of the mind; yet that Mercy which God attributes to himself, is not so. They only define that of men, but not that of God, and which the Scriptures speak of. Then the Latin word misericordia, we may thus interpret, as if we should take to heart another’s misery. If it was lawful for Augustine to derive it of miseria and corde, as that it is the misery of the heart conceived of another misery: why may not we say, that it is so called, for that we take another’s misery to heart? Truly this etymology can not be refuted by any good reason. And this definition does better agree with Mercy then that of Cicero’s, whether divine or human. For even God himself takes to heart the misery of his elect, as he teaches by his prophets. We commonly also call him merciful, not which has a miserable heart passively (for such a one is rather miserable then merciful), but actively, that is, him which desires and studies in his heart to help one in misery, and helps him as much as he is able. And so the Scripture calls men merciful: as where Christ says, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy,” Math. 5:7. But I pray you whom calls he merciful here? not those which have a merciful heart: but those which study and endeavor from the heart to help those that are in misery. But although the Latin word did signify that they would have it, yet neither the Hebrew word racham, used by the Prophets, nor the Greek word eleeo, used by the Apostles, does include any weakness or grief of mind, as they that have skill in these languages do well know: but only either love, and an inclining of the heart towards the evil affected, or else alms, the very effects of love: and hence is that of the Apostle, Rom. 12, “He which shows mercy,” that is, which gives alms to the needy, “let him do it with a cheerfulness.” Wherefore it signifies not sadness of heart, but a work of love done to the needy, with cheerfulness of heart. But let us grant that which they gather out of Cicero, Aristotle, Seneca, Augustine, that misericordia signifies grief and weakness of heart conceived from another’s misery: follows it therefore, that that name can by no means be attributed to God? are not also the names of love, hatred, anger, and such like, which signifies affects and passions attributed to God amongst profane authors? yes: but not after the same manner, that they are to us. For they are in him without passion, but not so in us. And why then may we not say the same of mercy? Therefore the Stoics’ opinion is utterly to be rejected who do not it any place in a wise man. There are others which think that the manner of mercy may be attributed to God, and that God is in the Scriptures worthily called merciful, and to be of great mercy, but improperly: as he is also said to repent, be angry, and such like. And they are led with the same reason that the former, to wit that it is a grief and passion of the mind, which God cannot be subject unto, and therefore that it is improperly attributed unto him. And this is the common opinion, which yet  I do not simply approve. For the reason why they think thus is, because they consider mercy in us, and then transfer it from us unto God: thinking that it is so properly and of itself called mercy, as it is in us: and  so for that it cannot be so in God, to wit, with passion, as it were in us, therefore they think it is improperly attributed unto God in the Scriptures. But it is my judgment far otherwise. For the name of mercy is first in God, before it is un us: for it was in him first: and it is eternal in God. And this gift and virtue of mercy, as all other good gifts, is given us of God: and therefore God is called, “Father of mercies: and we are commanded by Christ to imitate the Father’s mercy, as the rule of all true mercy. But God’s mercy, which is the true mercy, is not any infirmity. For God is merciful, of his own eternal and simple essence, as also good, gentle, and mighty: therefore that particle, weakness of mind, is not necessary in the definition of true mercy: but it is by accident that it is such in us: for that we are of such a nature as is subject to griefs and passions, so as we cannot bear, see, or think of another’s misery, especially if he be of our affinity, or nation, or else joined unto us by the bond of nature, or friendship, without sympathy and grief. Wherefore it is so far off, that because of the weakness of mind, which is not incident to God, but is incident to us, it should be attributed to God improperly, and properly to us: that contrarily rather, as wisdom, life, justice, goodness, and other good gifts, so also mercy should first of itself and properly be said of God, and secondly and less properly of us: for that it is perfection in God, and imperfect in us…

Read the rest of this entry »

Otes:

Mercy, which is the first thing here wished for, is ascribed to God, the Creator; Peace which is the scond, to Christ the Reconciler; Love, which is the third, to the Holy Ghost, the Comforter. For God here is called “The Father of Mercies,” Christ is called “Our Peace,”and the Holy Ghost, “Love.” The Apostle therefore in saying, Mercy, Peace, and love be multiplied, is as if he should have said; “The God of Mercy forgive your sins, the God of Peace give you Peace that passes all understanding, and the God of Love grant that your Love may abound more and more, that you may be rooted and grounded in Love.

And all this proceeds from the one and the same person; for albeit Mercy be ascribed to the Father, Peace to the Son, and Love to the Holy Ghost: Creation to the Father, Redemption to the Son, and Sanctification to the Holy Ghost, yet all these create, redeem, and sanctify. For we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, we confound neither the persons, not yet their work.

Mercy be unto you, Mercy in God is not passive, but active, Non quoad affectum, sed quoad effectum. No suffering with us in our wants, but succoring us in them.

Mercy is here taken for grace and the mere favor of God. The Apostle therefore in wishing Mercy, Peace, and Love to the Saints, teaches us, Quales esse debent Christiianorum salvutationes, nos literis nostris & epistoles, honorem, epulentiam, salutem, longan vitam amicis optamus, Iudas vero, misericordiam, pacem, charitatem, & dona caelestia, his tribus, Ecclesia opus est, aliter, actum esset. And first he begins with Mercy. For instead of Grace used by the Apostle Paul in sundry of his Epistles, Jude here names Mercy, which is all one. Mercy and Grace is that, whereby all good is conveyed to us: therefore an excellent blessing to be prayed for, and this Grace and Mercy of God is fourfold:

1. General.                                                  3. Temporal.

2. Special.                                                   4. Eternal.

Read the rest of this entry »