Summary of "John Lennox Brilliant Response on "Why did God command Killing in the Bible?""

Overview

John Lennox addresses the claim that the God of the Old Testament is fundamentally different from the God revealed in the New Testament—particularly regarding “justice” expressed through severe judgments and violence.

Main points and arguments

1) Clarifying what’s being quoted

Lennox argues that some of the harsh language in the Psalms (e.g., Psalm 109) is not God’s voice but the psalmist’s—human words expressing intense emotions after suffering. He suggests the Psalms record a range of human attitudes, not all of which are automatically the “right” attitude as such.

2) Old Testament judgments and “genocide” charges

Lennox takes seriously passages used to accuse God of commanding atrocities, notably the conquest of Canaan. His response is that these events must be understood within the moral/legal framework of the same biblical text:

Deuteronomy contains humanitarian laws of war, such as sparing women/children, preserving trees, and seeking peace before violence—so the conquest is not portrayed as simple lawless extermination.
The reason given for the conquest is described as extreme wickedness, including horrific practices such as child sacrifice.
God is portrayed as timing judgment after a long period (described as waiting for centuries), allowing entry when wrongdoing reached its peak.
Israel is warned that if they behave similarly, they will face similar judgment—framed as moral indictment, not ethnic arrogance or permission for one-sided cleansing.
Lennox argues that claims like “wipe everyone out” are complicated by the broader biblical narrative: cities and peoples reappear later, suggesting the action was not a merely literal, total extermination in every case.
He references scholarship (including a scholar associated with the Harvard/Yale context) suggesting an ancient formulaic pattern of repeated language (e.g., “kill them all”), while the outcomes in the text indicate it was not interpreted as absolute literal annihilation.

3) Rejecting the “Old vs New = wrath vs love” contrast

Lennox disputes the idea that harshness belongs only to the Old Testament and love only to the New. He argues that:

Attributes such as mercy and longsuffering appear in the Old Testament as well.
The New Testament continues to present God as just.

4) Justice requires final judgment

Lennox argues that humans strongly value justice, yet (without God) the world often seems unjust in this life—especially when innocents are harmed and perpetrators escape. He claims the Bible’s promise of final judgment addresses this:

God will ultimately judge the world through the same person who suffered on the cross and rose again.
He adds that if people could see how God deals with innocent suffering within the full “picture,” questions about justice would be silenced.

5) Biblical consistency of justice and impartiality

Lennox emphasizes that:

God is presented as impartial, judging nations by the same standard. Israel’s covenant status does not exempt them from judgment.
Israel is shown being judged through other nations, and the New Testament also contains divine judgment imagery.
- He mentions the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira.
- He also references judgment imagery connected to Corinthian believers taking communion without proper reverence.
Imagery of fire and final judgment reinforces that the same God underwrites justice across both Testaments.

Conclusion

Lennox concludes that Scripture presents one consistent God whose love does not contradict justice. Justice is portrayed as an essential part of God’s goodness, culminating in perfect justice in the life hereafter.

Presenters / contributors

John Lennox (main speaker)
C. S. Lewis (referenced)
Lord Sachs (former Chief Rabbi) (referenced)
Nicholas Walters (referenced scholar; affiliation mentioned as Harvard/Yale context)
Richard Dawkins (referenced)