Why Wouldn't God Give Israel His Eternal Laws at Sinai?

There is a very clear pattern that we see in the Bible with regards to God and His people. God reveals Himself first and then He gives His laws. 

We see this pattern in the passage above. Notice that God cleanses His people, removes idols from them, gives them a new heart and a new spirit and then causes them to walk in His statutes and be careful to obey His rules. 

Relationship first, then obedience. Faith first, works second. Our position in Christ established, and then a change in behavior.

We see this throughout Scripture. In Ecclesiastes 12:13 where God provides the purpose of life, the pattern is seen.

Christ summarized the Christian life this way as well.  We love Him first, then we obey.

Joh 14:15  If ye love me, keep my commandments. 

I'm definitely going somewhere with this and here it is.

One argument against the applicability of the Ten Commandments to the church today is that God did not give them to all mankind, but to Israel only at Sinai. It is further argued that since it was part of the covenant God made with Moses and Israel, therefore it is not binding upon the church.

I believe this view is not consistent with the word of God.

I argued on this blog that the Ten Commandments were eternal in nature and reflective of God's nature. They were not typical. There is a great abundance of biblical evidence to support this. For instance, I wrote this post about the laws Cain broke when he murdered Abel. Jesus taught on all Ten Commandments. All ten were applied to mankind before Sinai. Paul speaks of the 10th Commandment as being "holy and just and good." (Romans 7:12) In Ephesians 6:1, a letter to Gentile believers, he instructs children to obey the 5th Commandment adding that "is the first commandment with promise."

(Consider, was Ephesians 6:1 the first time God applied the Ten Commandments to someone other than Israel? If so, it is a very odd time to do it.)

When you look at the Ten Words, you can see that they are moral in nature (and therefore applicable to any people at any time in history). They have been referred to as "The Moral Law," throughout the history of the church. Consider, was it ever right for any people anywhere to have a god over the true and living God? Was it ever right to make idols and bow down to them? Was it ever right to dishonor parents, tell a lie, murder someone or steal something? Of course not.

Even the 4th Commandment goes back to creation in its ordinance. God said, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." (Exodus 20:8-11)

When God called Israel out of Egypt and brought them to Sinai, it was time for Him to make a covenant with them. He had revealed Himself to them by His power and had shown them His particular love. He refers to this before giving the Ten Words to Moses. "And God spoke all these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (Exodus 20:1-2) And spiritually speaking, He brought us out of the land of Egypt and slavery as well when He revealed Himself to us powerfully through the gospel and by his Spirit.

Why wouldn't God, as part of His covenant with Israel, give them the Ten Commandments? How was He to write His laws on their hearts and cause them to walk in them if He had not given them? They were to be a peculiar people to Him, an example to the world of His presence, His nature, His authority and glory. Why wouldn't He include in His covenant, laws, which were eternal in nature, being an extension of His own eternal nature?

If (and I only say "if" for sake of argument), the Ten Words were eternal in nature and application, why wouldn't God make them part of His covenant with Israel?

This is exactly what happened at Sinai. The Ten Words were not initiated there. They existed always but were formally published there as part of God's covenant with national Israel (and spiritually with His own people within Israel).

When we see that the Ten Words were moral in nature (and not typical of the coming Christ), and eternal, a lot of scriptures begin to make sense. But if we take the position that they were initiated at Sinai, only applying to Israel, confusion reigns.

You should see the knots people get into trying to explain which laws Cain broke when he murdered Abel, (and then lied to God) when the belief is that the Ten Commandments were not applicable. The result is a ball of confusion, particularly when you consider that the Apostle John gave us the definition of sin as "transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

Pray tell, which law did Cain break if not the 6th (murder) and 9th (lying) commandments? Any answer other than these two strain any sense of reasonableness we might have about this issue.

I have asked people, who did not have a position on this issue, who had not spent a lot of time investigating this matter, which laws Cain broke, and the response usually goes something like this, "Is this a trick question?"

Once we see that the Ten Commandments were moral and eternal in nature, it makes complete sense that God would include them in the covenant He made with His people at Sinai, given the pattern we see throughout Scripture - relationship first, obedience second.

Why wouldn't God do this with His covenant people?

The Ten Commandments always existed. And they were included in the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai. Once we see this, a lot of scriptures begin to make sense.