Childhood Questions and Early Assumptions:
As a youngster, I frequently asked questions such as, “Why can’t I ___?” or “What’s wrong with ___?” These questions inevitably arose whenever I was prevented from doing something I wanted to do. I was hardly unique in this; many children in my peer group asked similar questions. While it is common—especially for children—to argue, rationalize, or even manipulate in order to get one’s way, such questions cannot simply be dismissed as immature defiance. They raise important issues and deserve closer attention.
As a child of the 1950s, I was shaped not only by a religious upbringing but also by the prevailing social attitudes of that era. The post-war decade was marked by restlessness and movement, as people searched for stability and meaning. Increasing affluence fueled a boom in materialism, yet paradoxically this same period saw significant growth in religious engagement. In the United States, for example, the percentage of people identifying with a church rose from roughly half the population in 1950 to well over two-thirds by 1960. This era is often described as a time of conformity: society was largely law-abiding, and most citizens accepted both the moral and legal expectations of the culture.
From these two powerful influences—strict religious teaching and strong civil norms—my earliest understanding of rules, laws, and sin took shape. Within this framework, nearly all human behaviour, whether action or inaction, could be neatly classified as right or wrong, lawful or sinful. Only much later did I begin to question this paradigm and recognize its inherent problems. When taken on its own, such an approach can foster a worldview that is divisive, restrictive, and ultimately legalistic.
At the heart of this essay is a simple claim: while laws may restrain behaviour, they cannot transform the human heart, which is the true source of sin.
Law, Freedom, and Human Failure
If we attempt to explain all societal problems, moral decay, and spiritual brokenness solely as the result of insufficient laws—or of people failing to obey those laws—we are doomed to repeat the same failures. We often describe ourselves as “free,” yet modern societies are governed by an immense and ever-growing body of laws and regulations. While exact numbers are debated, there is little doubt that the scope of legal regulation in contemporary Western nations is enormous. Despite this abundance of laws, new situations constantly arise that fall outside existing statutes, prompting the familiar cry: “There ought to be a law!”
This raises an important theological and philosophical question: how did humanity move from a single divine command to such an overwhelming proliferation of rules?
From One Command to Many Laws
According to the biblical creation account, humanity was endowed with free will and given only one explicit prohibition, along with a clear warning about the consequences of disobedience. The movement from that single command to countless laws and regulations stands as a sobering commentary on human nature. The biblical narrative portrays this trajectory as the result of humanity’s decision to disregard God’s instruction.
Following the fall, Scripture describes a rapid moral deterioration. Prior to the flood, Genesis records that “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”1 After the flood, and before the giving of the Mosaic Law at Mount Sinai, Jewish tradition speaks of the Seven Laws of Noah, commonly called the Noachide Laws. These laws, preserved in rabbinic literature, are understood as minimal moral obligations binding upon all humanity.
Traditionally enumerated, these seven laws call for:
· the acknowledgment of one supreme God,
· reverence for the Creator,
· respect for human life,
· fidelity within marriage,
· honesty in matters of property and commerce,
· compassion toward God’s creatures, and
· the maintenance of justice through lawful governance.
Rabbinic teaching holds that those who accept these obligations are considered righteous among the nations and are granted a share in the world to come, while Israel, by contrast, is bound to the full corpus of the Torah’s 613 commandments.2
The Limits of Legal Obedience
History shows, however, that even rigorous law-keeping does not eliminate sin. The Gospels portray Jewish teachers who prided themselves on meticulous obedience to the Law, yet whose hearts remained unchanged. Jesus sharply criticized such legalism, warning that it could obstruct rather than open the way to God’s kingdom.3 Despite their devotion to the law, these same teachers accused Jesus of being a lawbreaker.
The pattern is telling: humanity moved from one command to seven, from seven to ten, and from ten to hundreds more. Modern societies have multiplied laws even further. This is not to say that laws are unnecessary. On the contrary, laws serve an essential purpose in restraining evil and protecting the vulnerable. Yet no system of regulations—no matter how comprehensive—can address every possible human motive or eliminate sin at its root.
Even if universal agreement could be reached on a complete moral code, and even if every person complied outwardly with that code, the deeper problem of sin would remain unresolved. Regulation can restrain behaviour, but it cannot transform the human heart.
The Origin of Sin: Pride Before Action
Any serious exploration of sin must therefore look beyond external acts to their inner source. Traditionally, passages such as Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 have been understood as describing the fall of Satan. These texts portray a created being who was originally blameless but became corrupted through pride, ambition, and self-exaltation.4 Before any outward rebellion occurred, sin first took shape internally—in the heart and mind.
The same pattern appears in the temptation of humanity in the Garden of Eden. The serpent did not appeal primarily to physical appetite but to pride, autonomy, and distrust of God. By questioning God’s command and casting doubt on His warning, the temptation shifted the focus from obedience to self-exaltation. The forbidden act followed an inward decision to distrust God, believe the deceiver, and desire what was not rightfully theirs.
Sin, then, was born internally before it was expressed externally. The act mattered, but it flowed from a deeper rupture in trust and allegiance.
Sin as Condition, Not Merely Behaviour
This understanding reshapes how we interpret those childhood questions—“What’s wrong with it?” If sin is reduced to “doing bad things,” then moral reasoning naturally focuses on the act itself. In that framework, objects or behaviours can appear to possess moral qualities of their own. Yet Scripture consistently points to the human heart as the true source of wrongdoing.
As Oswald Chambers observed, failing to reckon honestly with the reality of sin leads to self-deception and compromise. Unless we recognize the depth of the problem, we will underestimate its power and overestimate our ability to overcome it through effort alone.5
Human beings are undeniably capable of terrible evil, and laws are necessary to restrain such behaviour. But history demonstrates that external controls are required precisely because internal self-governance is lacking. What humanity needs is not merely better regulation, but transformation.
The Biblical Meaning of the Heart
Scripture speaks repeatedly of the need for a “new heart.” Through the prophet Ezekiel, God promises to remove the heart of stone and replace it with a heart of flesh.6 This imagery invites reflection on what the Bible means by “heart.”
In modern Western usage, the heart is often associated primarily with emotion, contrasted with the mind or intellect. Biblical usage, however, is far broader. In both the Old and New Testaments, the heart refers to the core of the person—the inner center from which thoughts, desires, intentions, and decisions flow. It encompasses emotion, intellect, and will.
Because the heart deliberates, plans, and chooses, Scripture places great emphasis on guarding it. “Above all else, guard your heart, for everything you do flows from it.”7 Evil actions are repeatedly traced back to inward dispositions rather than external circumstances.8
Why a New Heart Is Necessary
If sin were merely a matter of behaviour, then moral reform alone would suffice. Yet Scripture teaches that sin has corrupted the human heart itself. External conformity, no matter how rigorous, cannot heal an internal condition. This is why Jesus taught that righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees is required to enter the kingdom of heaven—a righteousness rooted in purity of heart, not merely in outward compliance.9
The promise of salvation, then, is not the imposition of a more demanding legal code, but the gift of a transformed heart. “With the heart one believes and is justified.”10 God alone can accomplish this transformation, creating new desires, new motives, and new life within us.
The greatest commandment reflects this truth: to love God with all one’s heart is not merely an emotional response, but a wholehearted reorientation of the inner self. When the heart is made right, behaviour follows.
Conclusion
Laws are necessary, but they are not sufficient. They restrain evil, reveal wrongdoing, and protect society, yet they cannot cure the disease of sin. Sin originates not in actions alone, but in the human heart. The biblical answer to humanity’s moral failure is therefore not an ever-expanding system of rules, but a radical inner transformation. We do not need more laws; we need new hearts.
Endnotes
1. Genesis 6:5 (NIV).
2. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 56a–59b.
3. Matthew 23:13 (NIV).
4. Isaiah 14:12–14; Ezekiel 28:15–17. See traditional Christian interpretations.
5. Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest.
6. Ezekiel 36:26 (NIV).
7. Proverbs 4:23 (NIV).
8. Mark 7:21–23 (ESV).
9. Matthew 5:8, 20 (NIV).
10. Romans 10:10 (NIV).
- Originally Published August 2016 and revised January 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment