“Keeping the Law”

[NoHype]

Notice NC that Gill is not referring to the Ten Commandments, but rather the ceremonial law connected with the temple services. It is with those now defunct ceremonies that is connected with bondage.

You and I understand that difference, but NC apparently does not, for he's equating all of God's laws as being done away with like the ceremonial law.

 

[NetChaplain]

Notice NC that Gill is not referring to the Ten Commandments, but rather the ceremonial law

I've yet to see any clear claims from any Bible commentators or in any Scripture that separates the TC's and the Mosaic ordinances as if one was not the Law. Scripture maintains that the two comprise the Law. Attempting to separate them (as some do, even an occasional Bible commentator) increases the confusion.

 

[DHC]

No DHC, Joseph wasn't refusing to commit adultery because he wanted to obey the ten commandments. He didn't want to commit adultery because he didn't want to offend the God he loved and sin against Him.Now of course there was no formal 'ten laws' at that stage...but sin is transgression against law...thus there must have been a law of some kind, whether it was written upon his heart or handed down through the family we don't know. But have you ever considered this?
Genesis 26:1 ¶ And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

Hello Brakelite.

I wish to discuss your previous reply Brakelite (post #99).

In your previous post you stated the following.

"No DHC, Joseph wasn't refusing to commit adultery because he wanted to obey the ten commandments. He didn't want to commit adultery
because he didn't want to offend the God he loved and sin against Him.Now of course there was no formal 'ten laws' at that stage...but sin
is transgression against law...thus there must have been a law of some kind, whether it was written upon his heart or handed down through
the family we don't know."

You said yourself Brakelite that there was no 'formal ten laws' at the time of Joseph. This we
can be sure of Brakelite as the scripture is silent regarding these ten commandments before
Mt Sinai. What we do know is that Joseph did not seek to sin by committing adultery. We can
not make the leap by inference that the ten commandments existed before Mt Sinai that would be
most unwise.

We know from legal codes in three other civilizations that existed before Mt Sinai, that only murder
and adultery were civil laws. Gentiles were ignorant as far as their legal codes are concerned
of any other commandment apart from murder and adultery.

If you think about it Brakelite then you would quickly realize that a command prohibiting idolatry
could not exist in the Gentile world. Gentiles had no revelation of the God of Israel and hence
Gentiles would be unaware that idolatry was an offense. How could a Gentile commit idolatry?

Israel had the revelation of God and the Gentiles did not receive this revelation. Israel committed
idolatry but a Gentile nation could not break the commandment against idolatry. So the ten
commandments definitely were not in effect for the Gentile nations. Either before or after Mt Sinai.

Your claim that the ten commandments were in effect before Mt Sinai is refuted Brakelite.

 

[brakelite]

I've yet to see any clear claims from any Bible commentators or in any Scripture that separates the TC's and the Mosaic ordinances as if one was not the Law. Scripture maintains that the two comprise the Law. Attempting to separate them (as some do, even an occasional Bible commentator) increases the confusion.

Hi NC. No need for any commentator to seperate the Ten Commandments from the ceremonial aspects of the law. Oh, and they aren't separate in that one remains the law and the other ceased to be a law....they were both separate laws operating in tandem, each having a different purpose but complimenting one another. And like I said, it doesn't take a Bible scholar to separate them nor a commentator, God had already done that for us. The Ten Commandments written on stone, place inside the ark, thus denoting the permanence and eternal nature of that particular law. The ceremonial laws were written on paper, and placed beside the ark, thus denoting the temporary nature of those laws. Thus God Himself, in His direct and verbal instruction to Moses, made the separation. Who are we to not recognize this?

 

[NetChaplain]

Hi NC. No need for any commentator to seperate the Ten Commandments from the ceremonial aspects of the law. Oh, and they aren't separate in that one remains the law and the other ceased to be a law....they were both separate laws operating in tandem, each having a different purpose but complimenting one another. And like I said, it doesn't take a Bible scholar to separate them nor a commentator, God had already done that for us. The Ten Commandments written on stone, place inside the ark, thus denoting the permanence and eternal nature of that particular law. The ceremonial laws were written on paper, and placed beside the ark, thus denoting the temporary nature of those laws. Thus God Himself, in His direct and verbal instruction to Moses, made the separation. Who are we to not recognize this?

Not to belittle your opinion and comprehension which you've shared here, but we would need to use Scripture for references to pursue this any further, plus we'd learn more about it. Thanks for you correspondence.

 

[DHC]

Hi NC. No need for any commentator to seperate the Ten Commandments from the ceremonial aspects of the law. Oh, and they aren't separate in that one remains the law and the other ceased to be a law....they were both separate laws operating in tandem, each having a different purpose but complimenting one another. And like I said, it doesn't take a Bible scholar to separate them nor a commentator, God had already done that for us. The Ten Commandments written on stone, place inside the ark, thus denoting the permanence and eternal nature of that particular law. The ceremonial laws were written on paper, and placed beside the ark, thus denoting the temporary nature of those laws. Thus God Himself, in His direct and verbal instruction to Moses, made the separation. Who are we to not recognize this?

Hello Brakelite.

Just because the tablets of stone were placed inside the ark does not denote any significance.
There were also two other items placed in the ark which also had no real significance Brakelite.
Not to us anyway.

Inside or outside the ark cannot be used to justify a claim unless the scripture declares some
significance to this placement. You might also note that the ten commandments also existed
outside the ark as they are mentioned again within the law. So theoretically the ten were both
inside and outside the ark.

 

[brakelite]

Hello Brakelite.

I wish to discuss your previous reply Brakelite (post #99).

In your previous post you stated the following.



You said yourself Brakelite that there was no 'formal ten laws' at the time of Joseph. This we
can be sure of Brakelite as the scripture is silent regarding these ten commandments before
Mt Sinai. What we do know is that Joseph did not seek to sin by committing adultery. We can
not make the leap by inference that the ten commandments existed before Mt Sinai that would be
most unwise.

We know from legal codes in three other civilizations that existed before Mt Sinai, that only murder
and adultery were civil laws. Gentiles were ignorant as far as their legal codes are concerned
of any other commandment apart from murder and adultery.

If you think about it Brakelite then you would quickly realize that a command prohibiting idolatry
could not exist in the Gentile world. Gentiles had no revelation of the God of Israel and hence
Gentiles would be unaware that idolatry was an offense. How could a Gentile commit idolatry?

Israel had the revelation of God and the Gentiles did not receive this revelation. Israel committed
idolatry but a Gentile nation could not break the commandment against idolatry. So the ten
commandments definitely were not in effect for the Gentile nations. Either before or after Mt Sinai.

Your claim that the ten commandments were in effect before Mt Sinai is refuted Brakelite.

Hi David, you said previously "More to the point your incredible generalization that the whole world had the ten commandments must be erroneous. ", and repeat again above, "Your claim that the ten commandments were in effect before Mt Sinai is refuted Brakelite.".
You crack me up David. You have demonstrated for the readers the perfect technique for creating ambiguity by introducing a simple statement easy to disprove then claiming said statement as belonging to the other party and show yourself to be the 'winner' of the discussion as a result of your 'proof' of rebuttal. For the benefit of readers in literary circles this is called a straw-man argument.
Two points David. First is that not only did I not claim that the Ten Commandments were in existence as a formal code of conduct for anyone, let alone "for the whole world" but actually said so, as you pointed out. Secondly, as "evidence" for your 'refutation', you cite that found within a number of cultures were civil laws against adultery, suggesting that it was a civil law that prompted Joseph to refrain from taking Potiphar's wife.
If it were a civil law that inspired Joseph's refusal, then why did he not say so? Why did he not say, "Oh goodness me woman, how can I do such a thing and offend Pharaoh?" But no David, Joseph did not mention any fear or nervousness regarding civil law or civil repercussions etc., Joseph said, how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
Subsequently Joseph was jailed for attempted rape.

Contrary to your claim re my making some statement re the Ten Commandments, what I did say was Now of course there was no formal 'ten laws' at that stage...but sin is transgression against law (1 John 3:4)...thus there must have been a law of some kind, whether it was written upon his heart or handed down through the family we don't know. Keep in mind that at that stage there wasn't even a nation of Israel. Israel at that time applied only to one man, Joseph's grandfather. They were a family, thus whatever code of conduct Joseph held to was inherited from his forbears, perhaps beginning with his great-grandfather Abraham, who it was attested to by God that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5) I noticed David you refrained from commenting on this verse?

Now let me take you somewhere else, and I will show you not only that adultery was more than just a civil law., but that it was a sin against God, and not only so, but was a sin even for a Gentile! Thus proving David that God's laws apply to both Gentile and Jew, and were applicable a long time before formerly being handed down in written form at Sinai.


Genesis 20:1 ¶ And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
3 ¶ But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Abimelech's ignorance did not serve as an excuse, nor even thefact that he hadn't touched her, for clearly God held him as being guilty, but for what?
Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

 

[NoHype]

I've yet to see any clear claims from any Bible commentators or in any Scripture that separates the TC's and the Mosaic ordinances as if one was not the Law. Scripture maintains that the two comprise the Law. Attempting to separate them (as some do, even an occasional Bible commentator) increases the confusion.

It's sad that you don't know the difference, but it's true, you don't have a clue of what the difference is. I believe the reason is because you've instead been listening to doctrines from men about it, which are ideas not really that are your's, but instead their's.

You just can't have your cake and eat it too, i.e., make things be how you want just because you want them that way. God reveals to us in His Word how things are, and we either believe Him or we don't.


Old Testament Law

Lev 19:18
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
(KJV)


Our Lord Jesus Christ

Matt 19:17-19
17 And He said unto him, "Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, That is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He saith unto Him, "Which?" Jesus said, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(KJV)

Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(KJV)

Apostle Paul

Rom 13:8-9
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(KJV)

Gal 5:14
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(KJV)

Apostle James

James 2:8
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
(KJV)

 

[NetChaplain]

It's sad that you don't know the difference, but it's true, you don't have a clue of what the difference is. I believe the reason is because you've instead been listening to doctrines from men about it, which are ideas not really that are your's, but instead their's.

You just can't have your cake and eat it too, i.e., make things be how you want just because you want them that way. God reveals to us in His Word how things are, and we either believe Him or we don't.


Old Testament Law

Lev 19:18
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
(KJV)


Our Lord Jesus Christ

Matt 19:17-19
17 And He said unto him, "Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, That is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
18 He saith unto Him, "Which?" Jesus said, "Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(KJV)

Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
(KJV)

Apostle Paul

Rom 13:8-9
8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(KJV)

Gal 5:14
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
(KJV)

Apostle James

James 2:8
8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
(KJV)

Other than a constant desire for God's approval of self, there can be no spiritual progress when attempting to justify the continuance of the Mosaic Law.

For effective replies, I would also suggest being non-malicious towards your fellow Christian. I say this not out of refute to your replies, but as a sincere concern for you.

I believe you're sincere here--"God reveals to us in His Word how things are, and we either believe Him or we don't," but for me to continue our correspondence, the slandering needs to stop. It detracts from one's credibility and it's not right for the one being slandered to reply, because it reinforces the error. Myself, I've learned over the last 36 years not to take offense, but rather continue to forgive unconditionally in love.

God's blessings to your Family!

 

[NoHype]

Other than a constant desire for God's approval of self, there can be no spiritual progress when attempting to justify the continuance of the Mosaic Law.

For effective replies, I would also suggest being non-malicious towards your fellow Christian. I say this not out of refute to your replies, but as a sincere concern for you.

I believe you're sincere here--"God reveals to us in His Word how things are, and we either believe Him or we don't," but for me to continue our correspondence, the slandering needs to stop. It detracts from one's credibility and it's not right for the one being slandered to reply, because it reinforces the error. Myself, I've learned over the last 36 years not to take offense, but rather continue to forgive unconditionally in love.

God's blessings to your Family!

Slandering? Is that what you think I'm doing when I am honest in saying that you don't understand these differences of what our Lord Jesus actually nailed to His cross? I'm not alone here in that by any means, and I'm not trying to pick a fight. But I will say when someone is just wrong instead of implying that everyone's own interpretations are correct, and I will back it up in easily understood Scripture, as I just did.

Now what do all those Scripture quotes in my previous post signify???

They reveal that God's commandment from the law, in Leviticus 19 to love thy neighbor as thyself, was part of His law first given to Israel with the Old Covenant, and that is has continued... to be a New Testament commandment by our Lord Jesus and His Apostles.

Not only... did Jesus and His Apostles continue that commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself from God's law, but they declared it serves as 'summary' of the whole law when we as Christians follow it! How then do you say God's law is no more for the Christian? Will you use the idea of slander again because you cannot get around this?

 

[NetChaplain]

Slandering? Is that what you think I'm doing when I am honest in saying that you don't understand these differences of what our Lord Jesus actually nailed to His cross?

Okay, I'm wrong again, sorry, slander is too strong and inaccurate, but your disagreements should be kind and I'll not categorize them this time.

to love thy neighbor as thyself, was part of His law first given to Israel with the Old Covenant, and that is has continued... to be a New Testament commandment by our Lord Jesus and His Apostles.

The "new command" of Christ (John 13:34) is similar but not identical to the old command of God. It goes from the conditional law-oriented- love as you love yourself, to the unconditional grace-oriented command- love as I have loved you. The difference is one is conditional and the other unconditional. The differentiation between Law and Grace is condition!

it serves as 'summary' of the whole law

Yes, everything Jesus said to them was the overall intention of the Law dispensation. Other than "the law of the Spirit," there is no law for those under the present dispensation of grace, and there will be no law for anyone again, until the Millennium--and that will be for the last surviving unsaved Israelites only. There will never be law for those in Christ!

 

[DHC]

Hi David, you said previously "More to the point your incredible generalization that the whole world had the ten commandments must be erroneous. ", and repeat again above, "Your claim that the ten commandments were in effect before Mt Sinai is refuted Brakelite.".
You crack me up David. You have demonstrated for the readers the perfect technique for creating ambiguity by introducing a simple statement easy to disprove then claiming said statement as belonging to the other party and show yourself to be the 'winner' of the discussion as a result of your 'proof' of rebuttal. For the benefit of readers in literary circles this is called a straw-man argument.
Two points David. First is that not only did I not claim that the Ten Commandments were in existence as a formal code of conduct for anyone, let alone "for the whole world" but actually said so, as you pointed out. Secondly, as "evidence" for your 'refutation', you cite that found within a number of cultures were civil laws against adultery, suggesting that it was a civil law that prompted Joseph to refrain from taking Potiphar's wife.
If it were a civil law that inspired Joseph's refusal, then why did he not say so? Why did he not say, "Oh goodness me woman, how can I do such a thing and offend Pharaoh?" But no David, Joseph did not mention any fear or nervousness regarding civil law or civil repercussions etc., Joseph said, how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
Subsequently Joseph was jailed for attempted rape.

Contrary to your claim re my making some statement re the Ten Commandments, what I did say was Now of course there was no formal 'ten laws' at that stage...but sin is transgression against law (1 John 3:4)...thus there must have been a law of some kind, whether it was written upon his heart or handed down through the family we don't know. Keep in mind that at that stage there wasn't even a nation of Israel. Israel at that time applied only to one man, Joseph's grandfather. They were a family, thus whatever code of conduct Joseph held to was inherited from his forbears, perhaps beginning with his great-grandfather Abraham, who it was attested to by God that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5) I noticed David you refrained from commenting on this verse?

Now let me take you somewhere else, and I will show you not only that adultery was more than just a civil law., but that it was a sin against God, and not only so, but was a sin even for a Gentile! Thus proving David that God's laws apply to both Gentile and Jew, and were applicable a long time before formerly being handed down in written form at Sinai.


Genesis 20:1 ¶ And Abraham journeyed from thence toward the south country, and dwelled between Kadesh and Shur, and sojourned in Gerar.
2 And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech king of Gerar sent, and took Sarah.
3 ¶ But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which thou hast taken; for she is a man’s wife.
4 But Abimelech had not come near her: and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation?
5 Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother: in the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.
6 And God said unto him in a dream, Yea, I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.

Abimelech's ignorance did not serve as an excuse, nor even thefact that he hadn't touched her, for clearly God held him as being guilty, but for what?
Mt 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Hello Brakelite.

I apologise about the length of this post Brakelite.

There seems to be some confusion on your behalf regarding what I said and did not
say. So if you are cracking up Brakelite that may have not been caused by what I wrote.

You listed two points and stated that I said;

1) The ten commandments were in the public domain.

I did not say that ten commandments were in the public domain. I said only two of
the commandments were in the public domain.

2) I did not claim that Joseph was obeying a civil law, read my post again.

I was claiming from external and verifiable evidence that only two of the commandments
were in effect in civil law prior to the Mosaic Covenant. I never said that Joseph was
obedient to this external civil law. I said "What we do know is that Joseph did not seek to
sin by committing adultery".

What I did also say is the following;

Gentiles were ignorant as far as their legal codes are concerned of any other commandment
apart from murder and adultery. This is what the external evidence indicates.

So you can see that I never used a straw man argument. There was no ambiguity at all.

There is no doubt that this is an extremely difficult topic to understand. I did not assist the
understanding of this subject by the use of the term 'Gentile'. Nevertheless brakelite you
and I know what I mean when I use the term 'Gentile'.

Now I can deal with your original claim Brakelite. Here is what you claimed;

Now of course there was no formal 'ten laws' at that stage...but sin is transgression against law (1 John 3:4)...thus there must have been a law of some kind, whether it was written upon his heart or handed down through the family we don't know.

Your claim is that Joseph mentions sin and hence there must be some form of law in effect.
This reference to sin by Joseph is according to your claim, evidence of the existence of a law
or even laws. These laws by your reckoning are the famous ten commandments.

You have been taught that these ten internal commandments were around in the time of Adam
and Eve. Though these are internal commandments and not 'formal' public laws.

A problem now arises which I referred to in my previous post. Two of the inner ten laws were also in
the public domain as external, formal, civil laws in three other societies. One of these societies
was the country that Abram initialy left under God's instruction, namely Babylon. So we have
two forms of the commandment to not commit adultery. On is internal and one is also external
and public. So Joseph would be aware of both the internal moral impetus and the external
legal version. Note Brakelite, I am not saying that Joseph is being civil minded in not
committing adultery. Rather that both versions of the law for adultery existed.

Further Brakelite, the structure of society is based solely on law. Society breaks down into
anarchy without law. Social structure must have rules and they must be enforced and obeyed.
Law is always both personal, social and national in its application.

Here is where you create the real problem Brakelite. You claim that the sin Joseph cites is
a transgression of a 'law'. You appeal to the phrase 'sin is lawlessness'. Thus by your
reckoning Joseph is not breaking the law of adultery and thus not transgressing the law.
The quotation from John is in direct reference to the Mosaic law system, 'sin is lawlessness'.

Here is the text again Brakelite let's see what it really states.

How then could I do this great evil and sin against God?

What sin Joseph is referring to is not mentioned. I should also mention at this stage
that 'adultery' is not mentioned in the Bible before Exodus 20.

If Joseph is aware of some internal law then the text does not state what the specific
law is in fact. We are not told whether Joseph's sin is against adultery or even against
sexual immorality (Acts 15). This is where the real problem arises and is due to the initial
assumption that is made. If Joseph's sin is adultery then Joseph has one of the ten commandments
at work within his moral fabric. Joseph is endeavoring not to break a commandment because and
this is assumed, Joseph has an internal commandment of adultery within.

If you assume that Joseph is obeying an inner ten laws then Joseph's sin is against the ten.
If you assume that mankind has an inner moral platform then a general inner law against
sexual immorality would be the sin. The initial assumption that is made determines the reading
and understanding of the text.

Now for your next point Brakelite, the line from Genesis.

Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5)

A very peculiar line that really makes no sense at all Brakelite.

I do not understand what charge or commandments refers to?

I also do not understand what statutes and laws would be referring to?

Perhaps you can tell me what each word is referring to as I do not know.

I see Abraham as committing adultery with Hagar as far as I am concerned.

I reject the claim that Abraham was a law abiding fellow Brakelite.

See the line (Genesis 26:5) makes no sense given the previous text.

You mentioned a difficult text (Genesis 20:1-6).

The question obviously is what sin was Abimelech committing as Sarah was single
and seemingly available?

I reject the quote from (Matthew 5:28) Brakelite, as this is not what the text says.
God prevents Abimelech from sinning and Abimelech was innocent and not guilty!
The text does not imply that lusting after Sarah was the sin, otherwise Abimelech
was already guilty! No the text states he was innocent and God prevented the sin
from occuring. If Abimelech entered Sarah then Abimelech would have been guilty.
Abimelech had not sinned by lusting after Sarah and the text is clear on this point.

I have already stated that murder and adultery are inbuilt rules, commands or
even laws. The problem for you brakelite is finding the other eight commandments
within Genesis. Your theology assumes all ten were in effect so produce the evidence.

If you make a claim then support the claim with evidence from the text.
Do not infer that something is the case without providing the evidence.

 

[NoHype]

Okay, I'm wrong again, sorry, slander is too strong and inaccurate, but your disagreements should be kind and I'll not categorize them this time.

No problem. I'll try to play nice.

The "new command" of Christ (John 13:34) is similar but not identical to the old command of God. It goes from the conditional law-oriented- love as you love yourself, to the unconditional grace-oriented command- love as I have loved you. The difference is one is conditional and the other unconditional. The differentiation between Law and Grace is condition!

That's trying to place conditions on God's Lev.19 commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. Here's an example of that very thing by a lawyer of the unbelieving Jews in Luke 10 that tried to tempt our Lord Jesus. You'll have to pay close attention to this to grasp it.

Luke 10:25-29
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted Him, saying, "Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 He said unto him, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?"
27 And he answering said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself."
28 And He said unto him, "Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, "And who is my neighbour?"
(KJV)

When that lawyer of the Jews asked Jesus who is my neighbor, Jesus then gave the parable of the good Samaritan. It's important to know who the Samaritans were at that time of Christ's 1st coming, i.e., what people they were. They were not a people of Israelite birth. They were foreigners, imports from Babylon that the king of Assyria placed in the northern area of the holy lands (around Samaria) when he removed the ten tribes captive out of the land (see 2 Kings 17). The house of Judah, or Jews, that remained in the southern lands in Judea/Jerusalem would not have anything to do with those Samaritan implants into the land where the ten tribes once were, because those Samaritans were pagan idolaters from Babylon (recall the Samaritan woman at the well that Jesus spoke to in John 4, see John 4:9).

But in Jesus' parable of the good Samaritan, it is the Samaritan foreigner that showed mercy to the wounded half-dead man lying on the road after the priest of Israel and the Levite simply looked and then passed by.

Here is how the lawyer was testing our Lord Jesus with that "And who is my neighbor?" Note the Lev.19 commandment, especially the first phrase of the verse...

Lev 19:18
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
(KJV)

Since the first part of that verse is about how those of Israel were to treat "the children of thy people", meaning blood kin (brethren Israelites), the lawyer was tempting our Lord Jesus with trying to apply that as a 'condition' to define who one's neighbor is.

By that lawyer's interpretation of Lev.19:18, in his mind God omitted the Gentile as a neighbor that Israel was to love. It is easy to read that into it, especially with that "the children of thy people" in the first part of that verse. But that's not how God meant it then in OT times either, because a bit further down in that same Lev.19 chapter He gave this...

Lev 19:33-34
33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.
34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
(KJV)

That is applied the same way our Lord Jesus applied it in Luke 10, and how His Apostles did also. Even under the OT times the children of Israel were also to love the stranger (i.e., Gentile) that sojourned into their lands, or that lived among them, in the same way as one of their own Israelite brethren. In other words, the Lev.19 commandment is applied the same way as Jesus showed in Luke 10.

But the unbelieving Jews, like that lawyer of Luke 10 who tempted our Lord Jesus, in their Babylonian Talmud they are told they don't have to be fair with the Gentile, that they can lie to them if they think it necessary, take advantage, etc. So what we see with our Lord Jesus' example in Luke 10 is how He meant Levi.19 all along, and not how the religious leaders of the Jews had interpreted it, since they separated themselves apart from Gentiles by their tradition.

 

[NetChaplain]

No problem. I'll try to play nice.

That's trying to place conditions on God's Lev.19 commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself.

Thanks, and it's so we can progress in our correspondences, for "To do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased" (Heb 13:16).

The issue concerning the differences of neighborly love isn't who but how. God has always taught to love your neighbor, and that your neighbor is everyone with whom you come into contact. There is a significant difference between the application of love towards others in the same manner you love yourself, and in the manner Jesus loves us.

Man's love to self and others is conditional and is affected by the quality of one's judgement towards the object, which is carnal and frail, because it's only conditional,i.e. one may be angry with self or another and not think they love self or others, because of their condition or that of another's condition.

Just as God's ways towards Israel (who were representative of mankind) in the prior dispensation were conditional and covenanted with man, which is not the same as the present dispensation, which is unconditional and not covenanted with man, but is the "new covenant," which is the "everlasting covenant," which all covenants came from. This is not between God and man, but between the Father and Son, and man is the recipient of it.

This is the "New Covenant in His blood" (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; John 6:54-56; 1 Cor 11:25). New in application but not in knowledge, because They've known about it since eternity past (Heb 13:20).

The love is in the unconditional forgiveness we are to have towards all, just as the Father, "for Christ's sake" now has towards "whosoever will." This performed out of the "old man" will be conditional and therefore ineffective, because it is no longer limited, in the "new man", which was God's desire all along, but was used to bring His own from there to here.

A good example is, which has been well said, that love (esp. God's) does not function according to the quality of its object, but functions according to its nature.

 

[NoHype]

Thanks, and it's so we can progress in our correspondences, for "To do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased" (Heb 13:16).

The issue concerning the differences of neighborly love isn't who but how. God has always taught to love your neighbor, and that your neighbor is everyone with whom you come into contact. There is a significant difference between the application of love towards others in the same manner you love yourself, and in the manner Jesus loves us.

Man's love to self and others is conditional and is affected by the quality of one's judgement towards the object, which is carnal and frail, because it's only conditional,i.e. one may be angry with self or another and not think they love self or others, because of their condition or that of another's condition.

Just as God's ways towards Israel (who were representative of mankind) in the prior dispensation were conditional and covenanted with man, which is not the same as the present dispensation, which is unconditional and not covenanted with man, but is the "new covenant," which is the "everlasting covenant," which all covenants came from. This is not between God and man, but between the Father and Son, and man is the recipient of it.

This is the "New Covenant in His blood" (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; John 6:54-56; 1 Cor 11:25). New in application but not in knowledge, because They've known about it since eternity past (Heb 13:20).

The love is in the unconditional forgiveness we are to have towards all, just as the Father, "for Christ's sake" now has towards "whosoever will." This performed out of the "old man" will be conditional and therefore ineffective, because it is no longer limited, in the "new man", which was God's desire all along, but was used to bring His own from there to here.

A good example is, which has been well said, that love (esp. God's) does not function according to the quality of its object, but functions according to its nature.

I don't agree. I understand how The Father sent His Son to die on the cross for us, and by that allowing those who believe on His Son to have remission of sins, something we could never do of ourselves, but I don't see that changing the conditionality of God's commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself. If it somehow could, then you could rightly say none of God's laws are in effect today, which of course is not true, even per Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1. And just bypassing that 1 Timothy 1 Scripture by Paul as if he didn't really mean it is not going to create that kind of conditionality you speak of either.

Furthermore, forgiveness of sins by Christ's Blood shed upon the cross does not mean sin is no longer in effect for the believer either, for our Lord Jesus and His Apostles gave strong warnings about that too, like Paul said, "What then, shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." (Rom.6:15). This is why Apostle John showed that we still need to repent of our future sins to keep that state of grace with our Lord Jesus (1 John 1).

 

[NoHype]

The Books of Romans and Galatians are two foundational Books of Christian Doctrine for the Church given through Apostle Paul. And what Paul taught in Galatians goes with his teaching in Romans. Galatians actually answers things in Romans of how sin applies to us believers on Christ, whereas a Romans only view leave some brethren hanging in their understanding.

Gal 5:4-6
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
(KJV)

God's law was never meant to give Salvation unto eternal life. The promise by Faith to Abraham which does give eternal life through Jesus Christ was given 430 years before the law was given. Flesh circumcision was given to Abraham as a 'token' of God's promise, also 430 years before the law. It was to serve as a symbol to Abraham and his seed after him about that promise. Since Christ came and died on the cross for the remission of sins of those who believe, that circumcision now is one of the heart, not the flesh.

Gal 5:13-25
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Truly, if we love our neighbor as our self we will have fulfilled God's law, what Apostle James called the 'royal law'. It's because of unconditional love to other fellow human beings, and not just only brethren within Christ's Church.

15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

But even if there are differences between us, we aren't to allow it to consume us.

16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Paul sums that up nicely with that 18th verse. Our flesh is always going to be at war against The Spirit. Our flesh often prevents us from doing things we are led by from The Holy Spirit. And when we are led by The Spirit, only then are we not under the law.

Now what is the opposite of that, not being led by The Spirit? The opposite condition is being led by our flesh instead. When we stop listening to The Holy Spirit Comforter The LORD gave us, then it means to rely on our fleshy desires and wants instead. That is how sin can creep in, by walking according to the fleshy desires and wants. If we do that we place ourselves back under the law. We all are subject to that delicate balance daily until the future redemption of our bodies by Christ, or until our flesh body dies.

19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul gives that list of works that show a walking according to the flesh. If one 'walks' in those things it leads not only to flesh death, but to a spiritual death that can keep one from inheriting the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
(KJV)

There is no law against the fruit of The Spirit. That is 'how' we are no longer under God's law IF we walk by The Spirit through Christ's sacrifice. What does that mean then, that "walk"? In the last verse there Paul contrasts the idea of to "live in the Spirit" vs. to "walk in the Spirit".

To "live in the Spirit" applies according to Paul's descriptions in Romans 8.

Rom 8:2-4
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(KJV)

The law of the Spirit of life is of what our Lord Jesus did for us upon His cross. It was so that "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us", that is, for those "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Paul just covered that matter of walking after the flesh vs. walking after The Spirit here in Galatians and there in Romans 8. Paul gave a condition with that. It's only IF... we walk after The Spirit through our Faith on Jesus Christ.

Rom 8:10-14
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of Him That raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He That raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit That dwelleth in you.

There's another part of what to live in The Spirit means. It involves becoming a "new creature" per Paul's idea in 2 Cor.5:17. That's what that idea of our "mortal bodies" being quickened is about. It's not about our flesh bodies, but our spirit inside our flesh bodies. That's about The Holy Spirit living within us, affecting our spirit inside our flesh bodies.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
(KJV)

That's what Paul meant with the idea of to live in The Spirit. But he also said let us "walk in The Spirit".

To 'walk' in The Spirit is what he was covering there in Galatians 5 with the difference between listening to and following our flesh vs. listening to and following The Holy Spirit within us. This walk in The Spirit is about 'action' meaning to produce fruit from our Faith on Christ's blood shed on the cross. It's the same idea like, if we live in The Spirit through Faith on what our Lord Jesus did for us upon His cross, defeating death and sin for us so that we might fulfill the righteousness of the law, then let us also produce fruits in Him by our walking in The Spirit.

This is how we as believers on Christ Jesus today keep God's laws, by living and walking in The Spirit, and not our flesh, for if we live according to our fleshy desires and weaknesses, then we place ourselves back in bondage to the law, and by continuing to walk by the flesh it can put us in danger so as to not inherit the Kingdom of God in the world to come, as written by Paul himself in Galatians 5:21.

 

[NetChaplain]

Furthermore, forgiveness of sins by Christ's Blood shed upon the cross does not mean sin is no longer in effect for the believer

Sin is still in effect for the believer (indwelling "old man"), and it no longer concerns sin's guilt, but rather its dominion, which is what the instructions of the Epistles address. Not that the Christian will return to his old life, but that there will be a constant growing away from sin's effect in dominance. The admonitions given are to show what a Christian isn't, and what a non-Christian is!

I believe the reason why many feel the Law is the rule for all is that it reveals God's will, and this is desired by those who are His, but it must be realized that His desire for Israel is the same desire for whosoever, and that there is much more involved to learn from the Law. This is why the Law was only intended to "tutor" Israel, that God would eventually be bringing them to faith in Christ for complete deliverance, which came with Christ (Gal 3:24,24).

Israel's deliverance (forgiveness) from sin's guilt came from the Leviticus Priesthood (Lev 4:20), not adherence to the TC’s, but bondage to sin's dominion and rule was not procured (requiring regeneration) until Christ, and His coming changed (Heb 7:12) not only the Jewish method of forgiveness, but also made this "new" method available to the rest of the world.

Now, one can be delivered from sin's guilt, but this also involves the unceasing lesson concerning deliverance from sin's bondage, while we are "being conformed,"---"from glory to glory." God is continually causing the Christian to desire His pleasures (Phl 2:13), and His Spirit keeps us from being ruled by our "old man" or sinful nature (Gal 5:17). Therefore the Christian has no law to instruct behavior, for our's is "the law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2); "against such there is no law" (Gal 5:23).

 

[NoHype]

Sin is still in effect for the believer (indwelling "old man"), and it no longer concerns sin's guilt, but rather its dominion, which is what the instructions of the Epistles address. Not that the Christian will return to his old life, but that there will be a constant growing away from sin's effect in dominance. The admonitions given are to show what a Christian isn't, and what a non-Christian is!

I believe the reason why many feel the Law is the rule for all is that it reveals God's will, and this is desired by those who are His, but it must be realized that His desire for Israel is the same desire for whosoever, and that there is much more involved to learn from the Law. This is why the Law was only intended to "tutor" Israel, that God would eventually be bringing them to faith in Christ for complete deliverance, which came with Christ (Gal 3:24,24).

Israel's deliverance (forgiveness) from sin's guilt came from the Leviticus Priesthood (Lev 4:20), not adherence to the TC’s, but bondage to sin's dominion and rule was not procured (requiring regeneration) until Christ, and His coming changed (Heb 7:12) not only the Jewish method of forgiveness, but also made this "new" method available to the rest of the world.

Now, one can be delivered from sin's guilt, but this also involves the unceasing lesson concerning deliverance from sin's bondage, while we are "being conformed,"---"from glory to glory." God is continually causing the Christian to desire His pleasures (Phl 2:13), and His Spirit keeps us from being ruled by our "old man" or sinful nature (Gal 5:17). Therefore the Christian has no law to instruct behavior, for our's is "the law of the Spirit" (Rom 8:2); "against such there is no law" (Gal 5:23).

Yes, I can agree with most of that, for by walking in The Spirit we become dead to the law, according to Apostle Paul in Romans and Galatians.

But Paul also covered the difference if we walk by our flesh, which reveals what God's law is for, i.e., for the unrighteous and sinner. He clearly showed also with the idea of walking by The Spirit that if we walk by the flesh we put ourselves in danger of not inheriting the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5).

Both concepts Paul taught were covered in my Christian Church I grew up in. But I'm not hearing about that warning of walking by our flesh as much today, especially with those who follow the OSAS doctrines. I am not blind as to why that is either, since Satan's workers have deceived many into thinking they can never commit a sin again after they've believed on Christ Jesus, and thus never have a future need to repent to Him. Those OSAS doctrines allow sin to creep into the Church, because the believer will not even be watching their actions and comparing it to sin so as to not even recognize whether they are walking by their flesh or not. Paul gave specific examples in Gal.5 of what sins to be watching out for, which makes the OSAS ideas of men defunct.

 

[NetChaplain]

if we walk by the flesh we put ourselves in danger of not inheriting the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5).

Yes, not to incite another thread, but I'm a believer in OSAS, therefore I do not believe a true Christian (not just a professing one) will ever be in danger of a loss of faith, or a loss of the heavenly inheritance.

 

[brakelite]

Here is where you create the real problem Brakelite. You claim that the sin Joseph cites is
a transgression of a 'law'. You appeal to the phrase 'sin is lawlessness'. Thus by your
reckoning Joseph is not breaking the law of adultery and thus not transgressing the law.
The quotation from John is in direct reference to the Mosaic law system, 'sin is lawlessness'.

Let me make myself perfectly clear DHC. My contention was that Joseph made a choice. Rather than sin against God by committing adultery, he ran. The ultimate outcome was a tenure in prison. A high price to pay for fidelity to righteousness, but pay it he did. I did not write the scriptures DHC, Moses did under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It was Holy Spirit that said Joseph refused to sin. It was also the Holy Spirit that said without knowledge of law, there is no sin.

Ro 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Ro 7:7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

My point being that Joseph was not afraid of disobeying a governmental or societal decree, because he himself admitted that his sin would have been against God.

Now for your next point Brakelite, the line from Genesis.

Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Genesis 26:5)

A very peculiar line that really makes no sense at all Brakelite.

I do not understand what charge or commandments refers to?

I also do not understand what statutes and laws would be referring to?

Perhaps you can tell me what each word is referring to as I do not know.

What laws they were DHC we are not told, and in the context of our conversation, doesn't matter. The point is that God did have laws before Sinai. What you are attempting to develop is an argument that says that civil governments developed laws against adultery and murder, but these were established without any input from God. The "letter" of the law...sure, Sinai saw that genesis. But the spirit of the law? I put it to you DHC that the spirit of the law was written on all men's hearts and minds at creation. And still today we are born with a conscience that knows right from wrong, quite irrespective of societal laws and governmental decrees. And I also put it to you that the descendants of Adam, such as Cain, Abraham, and Joseph, knew the 'spirit' of the law as given to them from the beginning. Jew and Gentile alike.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the (written) law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

So let me speak to the 'spirit of the law' which I strongly contend was in evidence well before Sinai.

Ist Commandment is about loyalty. Jacob understood this. See Genesis 35:2-4.
2 Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments:
3 And let us arise, and go up to Bethel; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.
4 And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem.

2nd commandment is about worship. The above account of Jacob began here....
19 And Laban went to shear his sheep: and Rachel had stolen the images that were her father’s.
20 And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian, in that he told him not that he fled.
21 So he fled with all that he had; and he rose up, and passed over the river, and set his face toward the mount Gilead.
22 And it was told Laban on the third day that Jacob was fled.
23 And he took his brethren with him, and pursued after him seven days’ journey; and they overtook him in the mount Gilead.
24 And God came to Laban the Syrian in a dream by night, and said unto him, Take heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
25 ¶ Then Laban overtook Jacob. Now Jacob had pitched his tent in the mount: and Laban with his brethren pitched in the mount of Gilead.
26 And Laban said to Jacob, What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, and carried away my daughters, as captives taken with the sword?
27 Wherefore didst thou flee away secretly, and steal away from me; and didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away with mirth, and with songs, with tabret, and with harp?
28 And hast not suffered me to kiss my sons and my daughters? thou hast now done foolishly in so doing.
29 It is in the power of my hand to do you hurt: but the God of your father spake unto me yesternight, saying, Take thou heed that thou speak not to Jacob either good or bad.
30 And now, though thou wouldest needs be gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father’s house, yet wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?
31 And Jacob answered and said to Laban, Because I was afraid: for I said, Peradventure thou wouldest take by force thy daughters from me.
32 With whomsoever thou findest thy gods, let him not live: before our brethren discern thou what is thine with me, and take it to thee. For Jacob knew not that Rachel had stolen them.
33 And Laban went into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the two maidservants’ tents; but he found them not. Then went he out of Leah’s tent, and entered into Rachel’s tent.
34 Now Rachel had taken the images, and put them in the camel’s furniture, and sat upon them. And Laban searched all the tent, but found them not.

The patriarchs knew the sinfulness of idolatry.

The 3rd commandment is about reverence. The word 'vain' in Hebrew means
07723 אושׁ shav’ shawv or ושׁ shav shav
from the same as 07722 in the sense of desolating; n m; {See TWOT on 2338 @@ "2338a"}

AV-vain 22, vanity 22, false 5, lying 2, falsely 1, lies 1; 53

1) emptiness, vanity, falsehood
1a) emptiness, nothingness, vanity
1b) emptiness of speech, lying
1c) worthlessness (of conduct)

The above was demonstrated most vividly by Pharaoh when proclaiming "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the LORD, neither will I let Israel go." (Exodus 5)

The 4th commandment is about sanctification and relationship. 3 months before Sinai God reminded Israel that there was already in existence a day that they must remember.
Exodus 16:22 ¶ And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses.
23 And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, To morrow is the rest ( now please note that God is saying "tomorrow is the rest...present tense; not tomorrow will be, but tomorrow is; meaning it is already in existence) of the holy sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.
24 And they laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein.
25 And Moses said, Eat that to day; for to day is a sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field.
26 Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the sabbath, in it there shall be none.

Now what is interesting is that some disobeyed. And what was God's response?

27 And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.
28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

This was the very same day first established at creation, re-confirmed here at least 3 months before written on the tables of stone.

The 5th commandment is about respect for parental authority.

Genesis 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
29 And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes.
30 And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?
31 ¶ And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;
32 And they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be thy son’s coat or no.
33 And he knew it, and said, It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.
34 And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days.
35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.....

.....50:15 ¶ And when Joseph’s brethren saw that their father was dead, they said, Joseph will peradventure hate us, and will certainly requite us all the evil which we did unto him.
16 And they sent a messenger unto Joseph, saying, Thy father did command before he died, saying,
17 So shall ye say unto Joseph, Forgive, I pray thee now, the trespass of thy brethren, and their sin; for they did unto thee evil: and now, we pray thee, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of thy father. And Joseph wept when they spake unto him.

The 6th (respect for life)and seventh commandments (purity in relationships) we have already established were known and respected before Sinai.

The 8th commandment is about honesty.

Genesis 44:4 And when they were gone out of the city, and not yet far off, Joseph said unto his steward, Up, follow after the men; and when thou dost overtake them, say unto them, Wherefore have ye rewarded evil for good?....
....6 And he overtook them, and he spake unto them these same words.
7 And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing:
8 Behold, the money, which we found in our sacks’ mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan: how then should we steal out of thy lord’s house silver or gold?
9 With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord’s bondmen.
10 And he said, Now also let it be according unto your words: he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless.

The 9th commandment is about truthfulness. Jesus described Satan as the "father of lies." The very first lie in scripture is found in
Genesis 3:4. Ye shall not surely die.

And the story of Jacob and Esau in Genesis 27 clearly demonstrates that lieing was known to be evil.

The 10th commandment is about contentment.

Cain murdered his own brother because he coveted Abel's blessing.