Complex question indeed--in the OT, and under Torah or the Law of Moses, "Thou shalt not kill" is better read as "thou shalt not murder." Killing in self-defence or for god or country was not considered murder much as it is not considered as such today. Accidental killing as well had a set of rules regarding it as does the act of manslaughter today. Your question about the identity of God is a different issue and I can't really answer about the identity of God. God has always been politicized by cultures and ruling parties, whether Jewish, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Muslim, Pagan, and so on and so forth. Muslims, like Jews, condemn killing or touching a dead body as unclean--yet in Iraq yesterday we see burned, mutilated bodies being hung on a bridge by children. This has happened FOREVER on this planet. As a note concerning theology, however, one could argue that the Jewish or OT God is not really what you would call EXACTLY the same God, though God is ONE also, we must remember--Jesus himself was asked if he was to do away with the law of Moses and he said without question, NO--that he was instead to fulfill it--to bring it into the present age. Moses' law was never intended as the final work--more of as a pacifier or framework to keep the Jewish people organized until the Messiah arrived to explain it all further. God can only reveal his plan so much as the people are ready to hear and understand it. A people coming out of repression cannot be ready for the whole shebang quite yet. They have to establish basics like shelter, food, water, before moving on to esoteric subjects like the laws of God. Cultural development, like individual development, moves in a slow progression over periods of time, with setbacks, pitfalls, and the like.

Your question is the (1) real theological issue that vexes me continually (I guess as a theologian that is either a good thing or I am not being critical enough!)...

Without getting into any conclusive statments, here are things that I have compiled as I continue to address this issue - I will try and point out what are really opinions and what are more close to fact:

1) fact: most of the races that were thought to have been completely wiped out at some point in the OT keep popping up again, in apparent healthy populations at times, in the future (even near future)

2) opinion: at the risk of sounding anti-semitic, this suggests to me a possible cultural/nationalistic bias in the recording of Hebrew historical events. I don't feel this is an anti-semitic statement since I also feel most cultures, if not all, do the same.

3) opinion: Nathaniel has a good point about killing vs. murder

4) opinion: Not as a rebut, in any way, of Nathan's perspective, I feel Nathan's good point is often abused by people in the way they form a self-awareness about going to war. Example: the amount of doubt being cast on the last gulf war makes the possibility of that war having been justifiable non-existent for my own sensibilities. Why? because based on the point Nathan brought up and concpets such as the Just War Theory, there should be, in my opinion, NO QUESTION OR DOUBT as to the neccesity of war in a given situation. I feel the last war has been plagued with doubt since the onset and it keeps getting worse. Some may disagree and I am using this as a personal example.

5) fact: not all war in the OT was sanctioned by God even though ancient Israel may have thought otherwise

6) fact: Murder is God' biggest ethical grievance. Killing for gain or because of prejudice or bigotry, in any way, shape and form is unaccetable by God.

7) fact: the concept of murder, in both the OT and NT go beyond physical killing. It also deals with attitude and relational issues as well as character assasination.

8) fact: Yahweh intended, at least as the ends, for Israel to be the peaceful voice of wisdeom to bring ethics, equality and fair trade in the ancients - it was to judge between nations where weapons would be brought only to be turned into plowshares (Isaiah)

9) opinion - I repeat - opinion: most wars in history, including recent US wars, I could not consider to be sanctioned or blessed by God. The motivations are often mixed with xpart social ethics, and xpart economic issues and sometimes xpart political issues. For the US, it seems economics was the major reason - well, that hardly makes a war justifiable by using the OT.

10) Fact: Christ came not to abolish but uphold the law. According the Christ and apostles, who used the OT to prooftext everything the proclaimed, the foundation of the law is to love God with all our hearts -or- in practice, to do so by loving others as we love ourselves.

These are, in a nutshell, things I have come across in the last year...

MC

There are a couple of problems with the premise of your initial question. Oh, let me preface that by saying: 1) yes, I'm a Christian--an ordained minister at that; 2) I'm defending my dissertation in New Testament on 4/26/04; 3)I am not, and will never be, a Biblical "literalist."

That said: The problems with your premise are these:
1) You are assuming that the different persons who wrote the documents eventually collected into the book we call the Bible agreed with each other theologically. Each was writing to a specific situation and bringing to that situation *his* (undoubtably) understanding of who God was in that situation.
2) You are assuming that the persons writing these texts knew that you would be standing there reading them... (okay, well, maybe you're sitting down). They don't know you're there.
3) You are assuming that every text in the Bible will agree with every other text. They won't. They don't. And that's okay--unless you need the Bible to say one thing...

Anyway, those are my two 1/2 cents worth (inflation).
Peace,
Rev. A.