Chapter 2: On the meaning of an "end" or purpose, with important distinctions
grace, or reconciliation—was actually obtained or purchased by Christ's death for anyone in particular.
According to them, nothing was truly accomplished at the cross except a general offer of salvation made equally to all. No benefit arises directly from Christ's death for any soul—not even one—unless an individual produces faith (which, notably, was not secured for them by Christ's death, since not all have it).
But this notion deeply weakens the true power and value of Christ's satisfaction. It robs the cross of its divine purpose and effectiveness.
And more than that—it lays the foundation for a dangerous, uncertain, and comfortless doctrine, which stands in direct opposition to the gospel's assurance.
Therefore, with God's help, I will now present what Scripture clearly teaches on both sides of this issue:
What we assert to be the true, effectual purpose of Christ's death; And the claims made by those who oppose it.
May the Lord, by His Spirit, guide us into all truth, give us understanding in these things, and—as Paul writes—if anyone is otherwise minded, may the Lord reveal the truth to him also.
Book 1, Chapter 2
On the Nature of an "End" and Some Distinctions Regarding It I. What Is Meant by an "End"?
The end of a thing refers to what the agent or doer intends to accomplish by their action—what they aim to achieve because they regard it as good or desirable in their present condition.
Take Noah, for example. His purpose in building the ark was to preserve himself and his family. In obedience to God, he constructed the ark with that goal in mind:
"Noah did all that God commanded him" (Gen. 6:22).
The things done in order to achieve a particular end are called means. These, along with the end itself, make up the whole rationale behind any action carried out by a rational being—that is, someone who acts by choice.
For instance, Absalom desired to take the throne from his father. His goal was the crown. To reach that end, he gathered chariots, horses, and an escort of fifty men (2 Sam. 15:1). He flattered the people and stole their loyalty (v. 6), then used the pretext of a sacrifice at Hebron to launch his conspiracy (v. 12). All these were means to secure his goal.
II. The Relationship Between End and Means
There is a vital connection between end and means—they are, in different ways, causes of one another.
The end is the primary, motivating cause of the entire work.
It is why the agent acts in the first place. Without an end in view, a person would have no reason to act in one way rather than another.
We see this illustrated after the flood. The people wanted unity, stability, and perhaps safety from future judgment. So they said:
"Let us build ourselves a city and a tower… let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered across the earth" (Gen. 11:4).
They first defined their goal, then set about the work using means that would accomplish it.
So it is clear: the reason and order behind all thoughtful action arises from the end in view. In intention and planning, the end comes first—even though, in time, it is the last thing to be accomplished.
The means are all the things used to reach the desired end.
Food preserves life.
Ships carry people across the sea.
Laws preserve the peace of society.
These are the working causes of their corresponding outcomes.
The existence of the means is for the sake of the end, and the end arises out of the means—either:
1. Morally, as what the agent deserves or earns under a moral rule, 2. Naturally, as what the means produce by their very nature.
In the Moral Sense:
When we consider the means and end in light of God's moral law, the means are seen as deserving their end.
If Adam had remained sinless and obeyed God perfectly, the reward—the end—would have been eternal life.
But because of sin, the end now is death—the curse of the law.
In the Natural Sense:
When viewed purely in terms of cause and effect, the means are the instrumental cause of the end.
Joab intended to kill Abner, so he struck him under the fifth rib with a spear, and he died (2 Sam. 3:27).
Benaiah killed Shimei by Solomon's command; the wounds caused his death (1 Kings 2:46).
In this regard, the act of murdering an innocent person and executing a criminal are no different naturally—both actions bring about death. But morally, they are entirely different. One is an act of justice; the other, a crime. The end follows the moral worth of the action, measured against the standard of righteousness—and between those two, there is a great gulf fixed.
III. Two Kinds of Ends: The Work and the Worker Because of the flaws and moral corruption in some agents (i.e., people), there is often a distinction between two kinds of "ends": the end of the work itself, and the end of the worker—that is, the act and the intention of the one acting.
When someone uses means that are not suited to the goal, or acts contrary to the rule they are meant to follow, the intended outcome and the actual result can differ dramatically. For example, Adam desired to be like God. That became his goal. To reach it, he ate the forbidden fruit. But what followed was guilt and condemnation—an outcome he did not intend.
However, when someone acts rightly—when their goal is proper and fitting to their calling, and they pursue it through appropriate means
—then the end of the work and the end of the worker are the same.
Abel, desiring to worship God, offered a faithful sacrifice that was accepted.
A man, desiring salvation through Christ, seeks union with Him by faith.
This difference exists because humans, as secondary agents, have ends assigned to their actions by God, who gives them a moral law to govern all they do. That law stands over them whether they acknowledge it or not. But God, whose own will is the rule for all His
outward works, can never fail, deviate, or produce an unintended result. His actions are always in perfect accord with His purpose.
IV. Ends Can Be Either What Is Done, or Why It Is Done When a rational being acts freely, their end may refer either to: what they achieve, or why they seek to achieve it.
For example:
A man builds a house to rent it out. The house is what he achieves; the income is why he does it.
A doctor heals a patient; his deeper motive may be the payment he expects.
Judas, when he went to the priests, made a deal, led soldiers to the garden, and kissed Jesus—all to betray Him. That was his immediate aim. But the reason behind it all was his desire for the thirty pieces of silver: "What will you give me, and I will deliver Him to you?"
In like manner, we can speak of God's purpose in the death of Christ:
What was accomplished: the satisfaction of divine justice.
Why it was done: ultimately, for God's own glory; and, in a subordinate sense, for our salvation.
V. Two Types of Means Means, or instruments used to achieve an end, come in two forms:
1. Some have intrinsic goodness, though we use them as means.
These things are noble in themselves, but when we use them toward an end, their goodness becomes relative. For example:
Study is a noble exercise of the mind, but when we pursue it for the sake of knowledge, we value it not for itself, but for what it leads to.
Otherwise, it can be wearisome:
"Much study is a weariness of the flesh" (Eccl. 12:12).
2. Others have no goodness in themselves—they are only useful for the result they bring.
They gain all their value from the goal they serve. In themselves, they may be undesirable, even painful:
Amputating a limb to save a life, Drinking a bitter medicine for health, Throwing cargo overboard to keep a ship afloat.
These things are not good in themselves—but their usefulness makes them necessary.
The death of Christ falls into this second category. It was not desirable in itself, but rather necessary and effective for attaining a glorious end—as we will show later.
VI. Applying These Principles to the Work of Redemption Having laid down these general truths, we now move on to apply them to the central topic before us: the redemption of sinners through Christ.
To understand this work rightly, we must carefully and in order consider:
1. The agent who acted, 2. The means by which the work was accomplished, and 3. The end that was achieved.
These three must be examined distinctly and in proper sequence, so that we might form a clear and accurate understanding of the whole.
With God's help, we begin with the first—the agent of redemption—in the next chapter.