Let's follow Bernard Williams's breakdown of the distinctive features of the Anglo-American morality to examine how much of it actually matches the Bible. These features can be summarised as:
(1) The morality institution is essentially practical, it must result in something doable.
(2) Moral obligations cannot really conflict.
(3) The "obligation out-obligation in principle", the idea that every particular moral act must be justified in terms of a general moral rule or "principle". It's the idea that we have to be "principled", e.g. for example if we're going to be taking down satanic statues in legislatures, we will need to justify this in terms of taking down all satanic statues in general, we need to be "principled".
(4) Moral obligation is inescapable/supreme. You cannot escape morality nor "opt out" of being moral. Only a moral obligation can trump another moral obligation.
(5) The only important considerations are moral considerations, non-moral considerations are either unimportant, or cannot take precedence over moral considerations.
So, do we have any biblical evidence for these claims?
(1a) Deuteronomy 30:11-14 may suggest something like this: “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach... But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it."
This as such suggests that divine commands are easy to do and very doable. However, generally Christian theology has held that because of original sin, there is incredible difficulty in fulfilling the law and not all is that doable. So this is about half-half.
(2a) Do we have any biblical grounds to believe that moral obligations cannot really conflict? Jesus himself in Mark 2:25-28 himself outright says that David did what was "unlawful", this he invoked to justify his own healing on the Sabbath, as such, one law/moral obligation can conflict with another. The bible has never presented the divine laws or commandments as a complete system, and while the Anglo-American instinct is to say that there's a "deeper" meaning to the law or the "spirit of the law" which doesn't really involve law breaking, Jesus did not feel this Anglo-American instinct to explain away the letter of the law which has been broken by deflecting it to the "spirit" or "true meaning", he just outright says that it has been broken.
(3a) This need to frame every act/obligation in general terms simply can't be found in the Bible. There's nothing that says, ensure that all you do be framed or justified in general terms. Absolutely nothing in the text suggests this. This is merely an Anglo-American affect for "rule of law" behaviour where every act must be justified in general terms.
(4a and 5a) Nothing in the text suggests that even the divine law is supreme or ultimate, even less morality. Some divine commandments can pass and be fulfilled. Furthermore, Abraham's dilemma shows that sometimes higher and more important ends/goods, e.g. demonstrating faith in God's promise of Isaac, trumps even moral obligations against infanticide and murder. There are more important things in life than moral obligations.
In the end, the morality system arose in the context with the retreat of God from the public space and where the divine will/word could no longer inform our life and actions in this life. However, once the divine will and end/goal for us becomes the overarching frame for understanding our role and place in this life, divine and civil laws can be properly situated, and ultimately delimited, within this overall schema.
There is ultimately a Kierkegaardian "teleological suspension of the ethical".