Theories of the Atonement

[RussellJBenigno]

If what you suggest is scriptural and sound, then it must stand to be examined.

I'm not trying to be mean when I speak, but just being matter of fact. ​

I have limited myself to a very small fighting ring. In other words I have confined myself to the doctrines of Jesus Christ and the Gospels, which also means my resources from which to draw are limited. It should be easy to knock me out of the ring if anything I teach is not found there. Am I right or wrong! But [sadly] so far you can't understand anything Jesus taught. Why? The reason you can't understand it is because you are using other sources to to give meaning to Jesus' teachings. We are not in the same boxing ring. Your confusion is not because I am confusing things, its because my source is Jesus, a different source than your source. I'll bet all your sources are one systematic theology or another. Your systematic theologies tell you what to believe about a given subject. Jesus tells me what to believe about anything He taught, because He is the source of all my revelation. Yet you have not knocked me out of the ring by disproving me by using Jesus. Why not?
​

My agenda! Point everyone to the Author and Finisher of their faith Jesus Christ.
​

 

[RussellJBenigno]

We have loads of people all over the globe who isolate themselves from their fellow believers, thinking they are somewhat above them, thinking they need no one to teach them anything and claiming that they only follow what they hear from Jesus.
This is confusing speech and you are already here contrary to scripture.

[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif](1Tim 6:3 -5 [UKJV])[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil questionings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw yourself.[/FONT]

[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif](John 14:26 [UKJV])[/FONT]
[FONT=Tahoma, sans-serif]But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.[/FONT]

(1John 2:27 [UKJV])
But the anointing which all of you have received of him abides in you, and all of you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, all of you shall abide in him.
Yes! You are confused! Very Confused and in denial! And denying scripture to the max. WOW!

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Dear Solidground
I will deal with point one later.

2. What is "eternal life", and is it natural/physical, or heavenly/spiritual?

Yes! It is both. The wording of eternal life is and covers: "Abundance and richness of Life Physically, Mentally, Emotionally, and Spiritual which has no end." It starts in this life and never ends.

3. Is

there such a thing as resurrection from the dead unto eternal life?
Or is the Bible merely an allegory for living a good full life?

Yes! The body is resurrected and continues in the "Abundance and richness of Life Physically, Mentally, Emotionally, and Spiritual which has no end." Resurrection is real and not an allegory I look forward to the Resurrection with all my loved ones, people and animals. another subject .

4. What is salvation? What is it that we are saved from? What is the way in which we are saved, and how does it differ from atonement?

The word "Salvation" in the Greek means to be "Delivered". The question I asked was, "Delivered from what"? The context of the "Deliverance is, Physically, Mentally, Emotionally, and Spiritual which has no end". If you follow every place where Jesus gives Salvation, it is attached to these areas. He gave salvation to the blind man by giving him sight. He gave salvation to the demon possessed by casting out the demons. He gave salvation to the lepers by taking away their leperacy. He saved the woman who had a issue of uncontrollable bleeding.
(Matt 11:5 [UKJV])
The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
(Luke 4:18 [UKJV])
The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
(Gal 1:4 [UKJV])
Who gave himself for our Sin [singular], that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:
(Col 1:13 [UKJV])
Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
(Matt 27:42 [UKJV])
He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Even the Pharisees knew what it meant to be "Saved" or have "Salvation".

What is the "product" of salvation(what is it good for)? What is the "product" of atonement(what is it good for)?

"Your Kingdom come your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Delivered from the works of the devil or every evil work.
The Ultimate work of Salvation is deliverance from everything which is not of God. The Ultimate goal is being reconciled to God.
Atonement is the transfer of Life upon us. When the lamb was slain its blood was used to purify the alter and the people. The life of the animal is in the blood. The Christ [ The Deliverer or The one who delivers {Salvation}.] Blood transfers Life to us just like the lamb transferred its life. The Blood of Christ gives us a covering [atonement] of Life and purifies us. The atonment gives us an entrance unto the presence of God. We go from death to life because life is transfered to us.

Dear Solidground I want to thank you.
I am so happy to have this conversation because God is using it to give me clarification. Before this conversation I was not really understanding the Atonement.

 

[tribesman]

I'm not trying to be mean when I speak, but just being matter of fact.
​

I have limited myself to a very small fighting ring. In other words I have confined myself to the doctrines of Jesus Christ and the Gospels, which also means my resources from which to draw are limited. It should be easy to knock me out of the ring if anything I teach is not found there. Am I right or wrong! But [sadly] so far you can't understand anything Jesus taught. Why? The reason you can't understand it is because you are using other sources to to give meaning to Jesus' teachings. We are not in the same boxing ring. Your confusion is not because I am confusing things, its because my source is Jesus, a different source than your source. I'll bet all your sources are one systematic theology or another. Your systematic theologies tell you what to believe about a given subject. Jesus tells me what to believe about anything He taught, because He is the source of all my revelation. Yet you have not knocked me out of the ring by disproving me by using Jesus. Why not?
​

My agenda! Point everyone to the Author and Finisher of their faith Jesus Christ.
​

Mean? You are contentiously raving about with false accusations. You are assuming things out of the blue. All I can see in you is a loner, whom have isolated himself from his former fellowships, being bitter and angry towards them, for whatever reasons, now sitting alone and thinking you alone hear from Jesus. Everybody else got it all wrong, and some of it is even demon possession, and only you got it right. You got serious issues man, that you ought to deal with instead of sitting here and spreading your contentions.

(1Tim 6:3 -5 [UKJV])

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof comes envy, strife, railings, evil questionings, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw yourself.

(John 14:26 [UKJV])
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

(1John 2:27 [UKJV])
But the anointing which all of you have received of him abides in you, and all of you need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teaches you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it has taught you, all of you shall abide in him.
Yes! You are confused! Very Confused and in denial! And denying scripture to the max. WOW!

*shakes head* And this you apply to yourself and your own would be infabillity. As I guessed, this is how you use scripture having always your own self at the top.

I am here to prove to myself that what I see is scriptural is from God. I need to know my revelation is in accord with God and not something I have made up. I'm not here to convince anyone what to believe. Atonement is an area I don't understand and by brain storming with others, things become clear to me. So when people push on my revelation the question is will it stand.

Nonsense. If you were serious about prove your message then you would not go on in the contentious spirit which you reflect.

...The Gospel in a nut shell is "God's Rule". The Messiah of God is representation of God here on earth ruling. These 613 laws of Moses and the Law of God are different. Deut.28:1-14 are referencing to the 10C and not Moses laws. According to Deut.28:1-14 these blessings will come on those who love God when they follow the 10C, which in reality is the rulership of God. This is why Jesus was asking the young man if he was following the 10C. Its all about the KOG.

The above is unscriptural teaching. You are confusing terms to the limit. But do you have the slightest interest to stand corrected? That humility I can not see in you. No. You will go on raving against churches and systematic theologies. And you speak about "intellectual honesty"? Sigh.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Mean? You are contentiously raving about with false accusations. You are assuming things out of the blue. All I can see in you is a loner, whom have isolated himself from his former fellowships, being bitter and angry towards them, for whatever reasons, now sitting alone and thinking you alone hear from Jesus. Everybody else got it all wrong, and some of it is even demon possession, and only you got it right. You got serious issues man, that you ought to deal with instead of sitting here and spreading your contentions.

*shakes head* And this you apply to yourself and your own would be infabillity. As I guessed, this is how you use scripture having always your own self at the top.

Nonsense. If you were serious about prove your message then you would not go on in the contentious spirit which you reflect.

The above is unscriptural teaching. You are confusing terms to the limit. But do you have the slightest interest to stand corrected? That humility I can not see in you. No. You will go on raving against churches and systematic theologies. And you speak about "intellectual honesty"? Sigh.

You have not disproved anything I have said. you have no scripture to support any of your allegations against me. Zero, none. The Depraved have no answers. This communication is ended.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I guess the question I would have for you is: what is the difference from before and after Christ's death and Resurrection? Basically, what was the change that happened due to the work of Christ, and how does it affect us today, and how is it different than what God had in place before the New Covenant?

The Truth is I never considered what the difference is "Before or After". That's why I here speaking about it. I'm sorting through the doctrine by the input of others. So far I have been helped considerably by our discussions.
In the book of Hebrews it says,"The same Gospel was preached to us that was also preached to the Israelites in the desert". The thing that was preached to them was the Kingdom of God, just as Jesus preached the KOG. The only thing that comes to mind about the differences of before and after is some spiritual sealing of the contract or covenant. In other words, the deal was sealed with the Blood of Christ. Now why at that particular place and time? Why did the death and resurrection have to take place 2000yrs ago as compared to 4000yrs ago or 2000yrs in the future like today? Don't know? To me, The "Finished work of Christ" is about reconciliation and conforming us to His image.
I see a contract with the Jews through Moses. Through Christ I see a contract with the World. I still need to sort through it so if you have input let's hear it..

 

[SolidGround]

The Truth is I never considered what the difference is "Before or After". That's why I here speaking about it. I'm sorting through the doctrine by the input of others. So far I have been helped considerably by our discussions.
In the book of Hebrews it says,"The same Gospel was preached to us that was also preached to the Israelites in the desert". The thing that was preached to them was the Kingdom of God, just as Jesus preached the KOG. The only thing that comes to mind about the differences of before and after is some spiritual sealing of the contract or covenant. In other words, the deal was sealed with the Blood of Christ. Now why at that particular place and time? Why did the death and resurrection have to take place 2000yrs ago as compared to 4000yrs ago or 2000yrs in the future like today? Don't know? To me, The "Finished work of Christ" is about reconciliation and conforming us to His image.
I see a contract with the Jews through Moses. Through Christ I see a contract with the World. I still need to sort through it so if you have input let's hear it..

Much of this topic is dealt with in the book of Hebrews.
The Old Covenant is considered insufficient, thus requiring the New.
This deficit in the Old is what we need to sort out.

Most systematic theologies agree that the deficit in the Old was that the contract was dependent upon man's ability to "keep" his end of the Covenant,
whereas the New is dependent solely upon Christ's ability to "keep" the Covenant.
The Old was dependent upon man, the New is dependent upon God.
The first is by obedience to Law, the second upon God's Grace.

Salvation was the same in the Old, yet hidden. It was revealed though Christ.
It was always by Faith, but was veiled by requirements of expressing that Faith.
In the New, the veil is torn, and the requirements are gone.
All that is left is whether a person has received the Grace of God by being granted Faith, or if they have rejected the Grace of God through faithlessness.

 

[SolidGround]

Secondary issue:
The Old Covenant was given to all nations, through Israel. It was not exclusive to Israel, but instead included ALL of those who submitted to it, and brought them into Israel through conversion.
The Old Covenant was never about physical birth or lineage or bloodline, but about conversion. Even the Hebrews had to convert to the Law, or they were cast out of Israel.
The only part of the Old Covenant about bloodline was only and ever referring to Jesus Christ.

This said, the New Covenant is not different merely due to inclusion, but also due to exclusion.
The nations always had an opportunity to convert to Judaism/Israel,
but now, the conversion is not to a culture, but to a person: converting into Christ.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Much of this topic is dealt with in the book of Hebrews.
The Old Covenant is considered insufficient, thus requiring the New.
This deficit in the Old is what we need to sort out.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Old Covenant ...
Law.....
Grace.....
Salvation ......

When I do my studies they are normally pages long listing ALL verses on the subject. I don't take a couple verses and pull a bible rabbit out. That type of trick is used by amateurs who should not be meddling in scripture.

I picked main words out of your post. My studies always begin with: "What?". What is a Covenant? What is Law? What is Grace? What is Salvation? Since this is not he place or time for such extensive explanation I will be more concise.

Covenant
G1242 διαθήκη diatheke (dee-ath-ay'-kay) n.
1. (properly) a disposition
2. (specially) a contract (especially a devisory will)
[from G1303]
KJV: covenant, testament

H1285 בְּרִיתּ briyth (ber-eeth') n-f.
1. a compact (because made by passing between pieces of flesh)
[from H1262 (in the sense of cutting (like H1254))]
KJV: confederacy, (con-)feder(-ate), covenant, league.
Root(s): H1262, H1254

Covenants come by the bucket load. The covenant with the Israelites begins when the 10C is given. Parts of the 10C had already existed with Noah [another covenant]. Abraham had a covenant. So the 10C is not exclusive to the Jews and is really God's Law to all mankind. When the 10C [a covenant] are followed there is blessings Deut. 28:1-14.. which Jesus points out to the rich young man.

The laws of Moses are mentioned as a different set of rules. When Apostle Paul states we are no longer under the law, he was speaking of the laws of Moses. Paul was writing to Jews and gentiles [who had converted to Judaism] and were now Christian. Jesus also separates Himself from the laws of Moses by saying," it is written in your law", because He was governed by the Laws of God [the 10C]. Now on the other hand the Pharisees had distorted the laws of Moses with their traditions.
(Deut 4:12 -14[UKJV])
And the LORD spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: all of you heard the voice of the words, but saw no embodiment; only all of you heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant [a compact], which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments [Words]; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me [Moses] at that time to teach you statutes and judgments [laws of Moses], that all of you might do them in the land where all of you go over to possess it.

So we have to hone down to a covenant. The old covenant is going to fade away when all is fulfilled. All has not been fulfilled as of yet and won't be until the new earth comes into being. So what will fade away and what will replace it?

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Secondary issue:
The Old Covenant was given to all nations, through Israel. It was not exclusive to Israel, but instead included ALL of those who submitted to it, and brought them into Israel through conversion.
The Old Covenant was never about physical birth or lineage or bloodline, but about conversion. Even the Hebrews had to convert to the Law, or they were cast out of Israel.
The only part of the Old Covenant about bloodline was only and ever referring to Jesus Christ.

This said, the New Covenant is not different merely due to inclusion, but also due to exclusion.
The nations always had an opportunity to convert to Judaism/Israel,
but now, the conversion is not to a culture, but to a person: converting into Christ.

The law of Moses was the law of the land. It was their constitution much as the USA has a constitution. The 10C is a covenant of blessing and curses.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Salvation was the same in the Old, yet hidden. It was revealed though Christ.

How was it the same? How was it revealed?

It was always by Faith, but was veiled by requirements of expressing that Faith.
In the New, the veil is torn, and the requirements are gone.

Yes! I agree it has always been by faith.
(Hab 2:4 [LXXE])
If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.
I don't understand,>>>was veiled by requirements of expressing that Faith<<<
Expression of faith is shown by our actions,
(Jas 2:21-24 [UKJV])
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? See you how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. All of you see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(Luke 1:5-6 [UKJV])
THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

 

[SolidGround]

How was it the same? How was it revealed?


Yes! I agree it has always been by faith.
(Hab 2:4 [LXXE])
If he should draw back, my soul has no pleasure in him: but the just shall live by my faith.
I don't understand,>>>was veiled by requirements of expressing that Faith<<<
Expression of faith is shown by our actions,
(Jas 2:21-24 [UKJV])
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? See you how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which says, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. All of you see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
(Luke 1:5-6 [UKJV])
THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Salvation was Promised even in the Garden (or on the way out of it).
It is written throughout the Old Testement, but as 1st Peter 1:10-12 makes clear, they did not understand what they wrote.
If you use your concordance based system, look up the words "mystery" "veiled" "revealed" "hidden" "understood".
The Word says that it is the same Faith of the Prophets by which we are saved.
This salvation is not physical deliverance (quite the opposite for the time being, as we are Promised to be delivered over to the hands of those who will abuse us).
So then, did Christ preach of an earthly kingdom, as the Israelites once had? No. The focus was always heavenly. It was always a Kingdom "not of this world".
This Kingdom is the citizenship that we have been brought into.
Galatians 4 says all this more clearly than I could.
First look at vs 1-7.
8-20 is an application in the form of a directed and powerful rebuke, but is a sidetrack for this current disscussion.
21-31 complete the first thought.

The expression of our Faith in no longer guided by rules, requirements, traditions, and regulations. Our conversion is our "bar mitzvah" in a sense. Now in Christ, we are not under these things, but are under the Spirit.
Our actions merely prove or disprove His indwelling.

The Law, hardened by Christ's preaching, is the schoolmaster. Reading it brings the elect unto Faith. It humbled ALL of us, because we ALL have failed it. This humility is what relates us to Christ. Pride is and has ever been what keeps man from relating to God. From the Garden to the Tower of Babel, to Sodom and Gomorrah, to Pharoah and subsequent plagues, to the snakes in the desert... where a symbol of Christ was raised, and the call went out to "look and live".

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Secondary issue:
The Old Covenant was given to all nations, through Israel. It was not exclusive to Israel, but instead included ALL of those who submitted to it,....

If your referring to the 10C or Noahide Laws, I would agree. I Believe that God leaves no one out and has extended revelation to all one way or another. If not He would not be the God of the bible, but a vain imagination of men.

The Old Covenant was never about physical birth or lineage or bloodline, but about conversion. Even the Hebrews had to convert to the Law, or they were cast out of Israel. The only part of the Old Covenant about bloodline was only and ever referring to Jesus Christ.

I agree about bloodline. I understand where you get "conversion or convert to the Law", but I see something different.
Through Moses came the law. Why the law? What does law do? Law demonstrates the "Holiness of God" as compared to "Favor [grace] and Truth". The nation would say,"What nation has such just laws like Israel?". Which points to the God who gave them. Holiness is special or set aside for special use. I see Israel being a witness to the world about God's righteousness. Jesus came to demonstrate God's Love [Favor\grace] and Truth toward all mankind.

 

[LT]

If your referring to the 10C or Noahide Laws, I would agree. I Believe that God leaves no one out and has extended revelation to all one way or another. If not He would not be the God of the bible, but a vain imagination of men.

I would say, revelation is to all men, but not all respond to the voice of revelations calling, because not all are His Sheep.
Those who have ears to hear, let him hear.
God has revealed Himself to all mankind from the beginning. First through Creation, and then through His Word, and now through His Son.
From the revelation within Creation, all men are without excuse.
From the revelation of His Word, no man is to consider himself innocent.
From the revelation of His Son, we find the Way.

As for "atonement",
if it does not relate to eternal life, then it is to be considered "meaningless", as the Apostles have spoken.
Christ's death was not meaningless.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I would say, revelation is to all men, but not all respond to the voice of revelations calling, because not all are His Sheep.
Those who have ears to hear, let him hear.
God has revealed Himself to all mankind from the beginning. First through Creation, and then through His Word, and now through His Son.
From the revelation within Creation, all men are without excuse.
From the revelation of His Word, no man is to consider himself innocent.
From the revelation of His Son, we find the Way.

As for "atonement",
if it does not relate to eternal life, then it is to be considered "meaningless", as the Apostles have spoken.
Christ's death was not meaningless.

(Rom 1:19 [WMTH])
because what may be known about Him [God] is plain to their inmost consciousness; for He [God] Himself has made it plain to them.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

Salvation was Promised even in the Garden (or on the way out of it).
It is written throughout the Old Testement, but as 1st Peter 1:10-12 makes clear, they did not understand what they wrote.

I agree it was promised in the garden. However, I'm not sure on the "they did not understand what they wrote". I have not looked at the subject. You have to understand where I'm coming from. Even though I have been taught systematic theologies I reject them as faulty and deceptive. After 35yrs of ministry, I started from scratch to understand the scripture. It is not that I'm ignorant of what is held by founding fathers, systematic theologies and other writers. I have taken the position that Jesus has to teach it or make reference to a subject in order for me to believe and teach it. And from my other posts it clear I am not fearful to speak.

If you use your concordance based system, look up the words "mystery" "veiled" "revealed" "hidden" "understood".

My type of study. I did a study on "Word of God" and associated words. It was 800 verses I have an excellent program "The Word" which allow for massive studies.

The Word says that it is the same Faith of the Prophets by which we are saved.

Agreed!

This salvation is not physical deliverance (quite the opposite for the time being, as we are Promised to be delivered over to the hands of those who will abuse us).
So then, did Christ preach of an earthly kingdom, as the Israelites once had? No. The focus was always heavenly. It was always a Kingdom "not of this world".
This Kingdom is the citizenship that we have been brought into.
Galatians 4 says all this more clearly than I could.
First look at vs 1-7.
8-20 is an application in the form of a directed and powerful rebuke, but is a sidetrack for this current disscussion.
21-31 complete the first thought.

As far as the "salvation is not physical deliverance" , all my studies indicate Jesus taught the exact opposite [it was not something I set out to prove]. This is not to say there is not a spiritual dimension to the Kingdom. Eternal life [Abundance and richness of life mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually] is the fullness of the Kingdom of God Jesus preached and that Gospel will reappear, because it has to be preached until the end. The gospel preached today is not the gospel of Jesus Christ as far as I concerned.

The expression of our Faith in no longer guided by rules, requirements, traditions, and regulations. Our conversion is our "bar mitzvah" in a sense. Now in Christ, we are not under these things, but are under the Spirit.
Our actions merely prove or disprove His indwelling.

OK! Interesting! Will look into it.

 

[SolidGround]

If your referring to the 10C or Noahide Laws, I would agree. I Believe that God leaves no one out and has extended revelation to all one way or another. If not He would not be the God of the bible, but a vain imagination of men.

I agree about bloodline. I understand where you get "conversion or convert to the Law", but I see something different.
Through Moses came the law. Why the law? What does law do? Law demonstrates the "Holiness of God" as compared to "Favor [grace] and Truth". The nation would say,"What nation has such just laws like Israel?". Which points to the God who gave them. Holiness is special or set aside for special use. I see Israel being a witness to the world about God's righteousness. Jesus came to demonstrate God's Love [Favor\grace] and Truth toward all mankind.

I do not separate the "10C" from the rest of the commands. That is more something modern, and a dividing line that I do not see within Scripture. The Law is five books.
If you read the names of those going to battle as Israelite warriors and mighty men, you will notice that many (actually most) of the names mentioned are actually from tribes outside of the twelve. To me, this sets the standard, that the Law reached beyond the bounds of heredity and genetics.

The Word gives us examples of three types of revelation. The Natural (Creation and the effects of Creation), the written Word (divided between the Law and the Prophets), and the Living Word (divided between the words of Christ, and the Spirit that opens up the rest of Scripture to us).

All men know there is a God,
even if they make excuses and deny it.
They have seen Creation, and have felt it's effects.

All those who have read the Word, even in part, know that they are sinners, and that there is a Redeemed,
even if they make excuses and deny it.
They have borne witness to the words of God, and have felt it's convicting power.

Those who have experience Christ know that He is the One,
even if they faulter and come upon doubt,
because they have seen the Light, and can no longer hide.

You began to get into the Law, and how it displays God's holiness. But this is only one of the many things it displays.
As for Israel, it is not one nation, but two. It is physical AND spiritual.
Not all members of the physical are part of the spiritual, or else why did God choose one brother over the other? Born of the same father, born of the same mother, yet "Jacob have I loved".
The Israel that bore witness was the spiritual. The physical ALWAYS rebelled.
The testimony of physical Israel is one of a just God, who punishes those who rebel against Him. The testimony of physical Israel is not one of hope, but of assured justice without favoritism.
It is by the testimony of spiritual Israel that there is hope. And it is of THIS nation to which we have been brought near and made citizens, through our unity with Christ.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I do not separate the "10C" from the rest of the commands. That is more something modern, and a dividing line that I do not see within Scripture. The Law is five books.

NO! NO! NOooo! It says it very clearly right here, out of the mouth of Moses himself. Is this verse wrong. The 10C and statutes and judgments are very clearly two separate arrangements. One is written on stone. The 613 laws of Moses were not written by God on stone. What ever systematic theology which teaches they are one and the same is the more modern interpretation being that Deuteronomy is 3000yrs old.
(Deut 4:12 -14[UKJV])
.....he declared unto you his covenant [a compact], which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments [Words]; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the LORD commanded me [Moses] at that time to teach you statutes and judgments [laws of Moses], that all of you might do them in the land where all of you go over to possess it.

 

[RussellJBenigno]

I do not separate the "10C" from the rest of the commands. That is more something modern, and a dividing line that I do not see within Scripture. The Law is five books.

Of course the first 5 books are considered the law. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are both devoted to the laws of Moses.