ceremonial, sacrificial, civil, moral, etc... these are all post-biblical labels applied to law.
Labels is not the correct word here for "moral". God's Saying some of God's Laws are "moral" and some are not, are "Judgments" of God's Law, not merely labels. Civil, Sacrificial and ceremonial Law could be construed as "labels" placed on God's Laws although God didn't divide His "Instruction in Righteousness" in such a manner. It is a 100% creation of religious men who profess to know God.
Your question was concerning the existence of the word "Moral" as it applied to God's Law in the Holy Scriptures. The truth is, it doesn't exist in Scriptures. In fact the very idea, the very thought to "Judge" God's Law as moral or civil, began in the garden of Eden by a religious voice who "professed to know God".
The foundation of its teaching, was that as long as a man lived by every Word of God, he would remain blind and ignorant. Only by judging God's Laws, some as worthy of honor and respect, and some as unworthy of honor and respect, can a man escape the "bondage" of being blind and ignorant.
"
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, (Judge the Law as unworthy of obedience) "then" your eyes shall be opened, and (Then) ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
This is the foundation of the "judgments" placed on God's Laws by this world's religious system. "I don't have to honor or respect God in this Law of His, because it's not moral".
I would advocate caution where adopting this world's judgments and Labels they place on God's Laws. It didn't bode well for those examples God gave us in the Scriptures. And as Paul said, "Are we better than they"? God forbid!!"
they don't demand the law is cut up and sectioned off this way only that they can be useful for theological applications. With the case of "moral" this is a qualitative judgment, but it's not that helpful because in order to apply it uniquely to the 10 we have to redefine what moral means.
Why? This is the trap this world's religious system sets for us. First, it deceives us into believing some of God's Laws are not "moral" Laws which justifies men in their rejection of them. But because different religious sects and businesses of this world define differently what Laws are "moral" and what laws are not, there is often disagreements between the competing religious sects.
In your argument here, your definition of "moral Law" is different from SB's Definition of "Moral Law". So you have 3 choices really. You can submit to SB's judgment of "moral Law", and deny your own judgment. Or you can try and convince SB to "redefine what moral means" to align with your definition.
And the 3rd choice, which is the choice I advocate, is that we trust all of God's Word as "moral", and stop listening to all the other voices in the world that God placed us in.
Since there are moral laws both inside the 10 and outside and there are aspects of the 10 that are not based on moral action, then "moral" is only being used as a replacement for the 10 commandments but since it uses the word "moral," it creates a bias carrying a suggestion that qualitatively speaking it rises above the other laws.
We'll, there are "Greater Commandments", and "Lessor Commandments" according to the Jesus "of the Bible". Murdering your brother would be a greater evil that coveting what your brother had. Both have the same punishment for those who transgressed, but one would be worse for your brother than the other. And Jesus said this distinction has no bearing on whether we honor God in obedience or not.
But judging God's Laws, some as moral and others as not, isn't replacing the 10 Commandments, its exalting oneself over God. It's saying we are qualified to judge God and His Laws. In my view "it creates a bias carrying a suggestion that qualitatively speaking our judgment rises above the judgment of God.
A title that's more useful that isolates the 10 is calling them polemic pillar laws in their role of contrasting surrounding ANE (ancient near east) values. They don't alone accomplish this and the whole law shares that role too, but they do stand as a poster of contrast, quickly establishing value systems that are very different in terms of its monothesisic values (commandments 1-3) values of civil order that extend to moral action (5-10) and with th 4th how they value 7th day practice which was already a pre-existing value system prevelient in ANE cultures. The 10 takes the 7th-day system that would have had mass pagan association, redeeming by pointing it to worship/practice to a monotheistic God as well as lacing it with a redemptive story.
You seem to making my point here. If I understand your position, you believe SB is in error by isolating the Commandments of God given in Exodus 20, from God's other Laws and assigning a greater value to the Laws defined in Exodus 20, and a "lessor" value to those Laws of God HE gave in, let's say, Leviticus 19.
But aren't you doing the same thing by isolating one of God's Laws in Exodus 20, and assigning it a "lessor" value than the other Laws of God given at the same time, to the same audience?
"moral" is too loaded of term and pits the 10 against the other laws which was never the purpose.
I couldn't agree more. But aren't you promoting the same thing by judging one of God's Commandments given in Exodus 20, as "not a moral command", and then pitting that LAW against the other Laws defined for us in Exodus 20?
I agree that God didn't create His Laws for men to judge one against or over another. Rather, God created Laws as "instruction in "HIS" definition of righteousness for those who would join themselves to Him in this cursed world.
The 10 do not act alone from the covenant they are created in, they are called tablets of covenant law, but even before Moses climbed the mountain to get the tablets the commandments were already communicated to the Israelites, along with a host of other laws.
Indeed, Noah and Abraham was also given God's Judgments, Statutes commandments and Laws. Except for the Levitical Priesthood, which wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham, as Levi wasn't even born in Abraham's time.
The 10 are first brought up in Ex 20 and Moses climbs the mountain in Ex 24. Those 4 chapters in between all address laws that stand together with the 10, not separate to them and a part of the covenant relationship that was formed that Israel committed to... all before the tablets were made.
Some were enumerated before Ex. 20, as far back as Cain and Abel, and Noah and Abraham. And truly they were a part of God's relationship with men throughout the Bible. I completely agree that we shouldn't judge God's Laws, some as worthy of honor, and some as not worthy of honor.
We completely miss the point when we extract the 10 outside of its context and force them to work as some sort of universal moral code, for one they don't work this way. I may avoid killing my neighbour, stealing from him, lying to him or sleeping with his wife, (those are actually pretty easy to do) but I may also hate him and avoid him at all costs. If I see he has fallen, cross the street and ignore him. This all would keep the 10, but grossly misses the point. For example, Ex 23:4 "If you come across your enemy’s ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to return it." this is not a requirement of the 10 commandments, yet it is presented alongside of them and should not be regarded as separate to them. So, sure we include this as well.... it also presents laws on how we keep slaves, do we include that as well? The point is we can't cut and paste law and pick what we think is better than another. It's a package deal and is designed to work together, and it all points to Christ (including the slavary parts)
Absolutely. This is why, in my view, Jesus quoted His Father in the Gospel of Christ, "Man shall live by Every Word that Proceeds from the mouth of God.
Certainly a great topic of discussion to be had among men seeking the Righteousness of God.
. Help us to overcome our divisiveness, in your Son, Jesus' name. 
.
