God’s Laws : a means to an End?
Carlton Foster – complied on June 7, 2026
Sometimes we hear the phrase “it is or it’s not a means to an end.” What is the phrase implying? The meaning is “Something done not because it is valuable by itself, but because it helps achieve a desired goal.” In other words, the “means” is the method, the path, or tool, and the “end” is the final objective or purpose that the method helped to accomplish. So, the question is, “Are the laws of God just a means to an “End”? And if so, what is the “End”?
Before we answer the questions, let us look at some simple examples:
The Origin of the expression
The phrase comes from very old philosophical language, especially from discussions about:
The wording has roots in ancient philosophy, particularly in the works of Aristotle, who discussed how human actions are directed toward “ends” or purposes. Later, the idea became especially famous through Immanuel Kant. Kant argued that people should never be treated merely as “a means to an end”, meaning human beings should not be used only as tools for someone else’s goals.
Modern usage
Today the phrase is commonly used in everyday English, often neutrally:
But it can also have a negative tone if it implies manipulation:
That suggests using others only for personal benefit.
God’s Laws – Authoritative Methods – Means
With this information in mind, could all the laws of God be a means (method, the path, or tools) to get to know God (which is the objective and purpose)?
Many religious thinkers and Christians would understand it that way. In that sense, the laws or commandments of God are not merely rules for their own sake, but a way or method of knowing God’s character, learning what He values, developing a relationship with Him, and guiding people toward love, justice, mercy, and holiness.
So the laws can be viewed as a means, while a deeper, closer relationship with God is the goal (the end). Jesus expressed a similar idea when He summarized the law into love for God and love for neighbor: “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” – Gospel of Matthew 22:37–40. The Apostle Paul the Apostle also wrote that: “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” – Epistle to the Romans 13:10.
That suggests the commandments point beyond themselves; they point and lead towards knowing the character and purposes of God. At the same time, different Christian traditions emphasize this differently. Some stress obedience to God’s commandments as central, while others stress that the law’s deeper purpose is to lead people to faith, grace, and transformation in the character of Jesus Christ.
There is also a biblical warning against treating the law as an end in itself while missing God’s heart behind it. Jesus criticized some religious leaders for outward rule-keeping while neglecting “justice and mercy and faithfulness” (Matthew 23:23). When the “means” is not getting you to the “end”, there is a misunderstanding of what is really the end goal.
Using the “Means” as the “End”
One of the major biblical warnings is that even something holy – like God’s law — can be misused when it becomes detached from the purpose or goal for which it was given. In Scripture, God’s law is presented as good, “The law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.” — Epistle to the Romans 7:12. But the danger comes when people treat the law as the ultimate end rather than as something meant to lead to the goal (love, mercy, justice, reconciliation, and knowledge of God). In that situation, rules become more important than people, external conformity replaces inner transformation, and humans can begin using others as tools to defend a religious system.
That is very close to what Jesus Christ confronted repeatedly. For example, in disputes over Sabbath observance, Jesus healed suffering people even when religious leaders objected that it violated their interpretation of the law. He said, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath.” — Gospel of Mark 2:27. Jesus’ statement reverses a dangerous mindset for those who see the Sabbath as the goal rather than the means. God’s commands were given for human good and flourishing, not for humans to be sacrificed to the preservation of a rule system. Jesus also condemned religious leaders who “bind heavy burdens” on others
while lacking mercy themselves (Matthew 23:4). And in another place, he said, “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.” — Book of Hosea 6:6, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 9:13.
The deeper danger is spiritual: when law becomes the end itself, people may begin believing that preserving doctrinal purity, institutional control, or religious reputation justifies harming others. History shows this repeatedly: exclusion, persecution, shaming, violence, and even killing, have at times been defended “for God,” while contradicting the very character of God.
In Gospel of John 16:2, Jesus warned His followers, “whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.” This is one of the strongest biblical examples of religious zeal detached from God’s spirit. The biblical corrective is that the law must be interpreted through the character of God Himself. According to the New Testament, that character is revealed supremely in love. “God is love.” — First Epistle of John 4:8.
So when obedience to law produces cruelty, contempt, oppression, or destruction of people made in God’s image, something has gone wrong at the level of understanding the law’s purpose. This does not mean the law is meaningless or optional. Rather, it means the law is not God Himself, the law points beyond itself. Its fulfillment is connected to love, mercy, justice, and restoration. That is why the New Testament repeatedly connects true obedience with love of neighbor, compassion, humility, and care for human beings.
Ceremonial – Sacrifice Laws: means to What End
Since the sacrificial laws are a means to an end, why was Abel’s method of sacrifice accepted to God, but Cain’s not? The story of Cain and Abel in Book of Genesis 4 has been discussed for centuries, and the text (in the Bible) itself gives only partial explanations, so Christians and Jews have drawn several connected conclusions from it.
The basic account says Cain offered what was produced from the ground, but Abel offered “the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions.” God accepted Abel and his offering, but not Cain and his offering. The important question is why? The answer is in identifying the goal, purpose, the objective. The issue may not have been animal vs. plant offerings, because later in the Old Testament, God accepted grain offerings and firstfruits offerings as legitimate worship. So the problem was probably not simply “animal sacrifice good” but “vegetable sacrifice bad.”
The Bible itself points more toward the heart and attitude behind the offering. For example, Abel’s offering is described as “firstborn” and the “fat portions,” which suggests giving the best and first to God, while Cain’s offering is described more generically “an offering.”
Many interpreters see intentional contrast there. The Book of Hebrews emphasizes faith; it gives the clearest interpretation, “By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain.”
— Hebrews 11:4. By Faith – his belief, he had a deep purpose and a goal in doing the sacrifice. So the decisive issue was not merely ritual form, but faith. Abel’s sacrifice represented trust, surrender, reverence, and genuine devotion.
Cain’s seems to have lacked that inward reality. His belief was what Paul warns about: “You must each decide in your heart how much to give. And don’t give reluctantly or in response to pressure. For God loves a person who gives cheerfully.” – 2 Corinthians 9:7. This fits with many later biblical teachings where God rejects outward worship disconnected from the heart, such as Isaiah 1, Amos 5, Micah 6, Matthew 23, etc.
Cain’s later response reveals his spirit, other clues come from Cain’s reaction. After God confronts him, Cain becomes angry rather than repentant. Then he murders Abel. That progression suggests the rejected offering revealed a deeper inner condition already present, such as jealousy, pride, resentment, and refusal to humble himself before God. In fact, God warns Cain, “sin lieth at the door.” — Book of Genesis 4:7. The story becomes not merely about sacrifice, but about the human heart.
How is this connected to the question about “means” and “ends”? This story fits deeply with the idea that ceremonial sacrificial systems were never intended as ends in themselves. God was not ultimately seeking blood, rituals, or ceremonies for their own sake. He said in Isaiah 1:11-17, “What makes you think I want all your sacrifices?” says the Lord. “I am sick of your burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fattened cattle. I get no pleasure from the blood of bulls and lambs and goats. When you come to worship me, who asked you to parade through my courts with all your ceremony? Stop bringing me your meaningless gifts; the incense of your offerings disgusts me! As for your celebrations of the new moon and the Sabbath and your special days for fasting – they are all sinful and false. I want no more of your pious meetings. I hate your new moon celebrations and your annual festivals. They are a burden to me. I cannot stand them! When you lift up your hands in prayer, I will not look. Though you offer many prayers, I will not listen, for your hands are covered with the blood of innocent victims. Wash yourselves and be clean! Get your sins out of my sight. Give up your evil ways. Learn to do good. Seek justice.”
The sacrifices were meant to express faith, repentance, gratitude, dependence on God, and reconciliation. Without those realities, the ritual loses meaning. That is why later prophets could say things like “To obey is better than sacrifice.” — 1 Samuel 15:22. And “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” — Book of Hosea 6:6.
So Abel’s sacrifice appears accepted not because God arbitrarily preferred one ritual form, but because Abel approached God in faith and sincerity, while Cain’s worship lacked the inward reality the sacrifice was supposed to represent. This is a recurring biblical theme. External religion without inner transformation can become empty, and rituals meant to lead toward God can themselves become substitutes for truly knowing Him.
The 7th vs the 1st
Similarly why the method or means of worship as stated by the 4th Commandment – about the 7th day is emphasized in the Bible over the worship on the 1st day of the week, when both means seem to be worshipping God? This question reaches into one of the longest and deepest debates within Christianity, because it involves the meaning of God’s commandments, the purpose of worship, the authority of tradition, and how Christians understand the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.
In John 4:23-24, Jesus explains that true worship is no longer defined by a specific physical location, but by a genuine, inward posture of the heart. He said, “… true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Father is looking for those who will worship him that way. For God is Spirit, so those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth.” Different Christians looked at it differently, but the underlying issue is often exactly what “a means to an end” is exploring. That is, what is the relationship between the means and the end. The method, the path, or tools that leads you to the end (the final objective or purpose).
The Fourth Commandment in Book of Exodus 20 specifically says “the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God.” So biblically, the seventh day itself is explicitly named and sanctified in the commandment. The text does not merely say “worship one day in seven”; it identifies a particular day which is connected to creation, rest, remembrance, liberation, and covenant identity (as a sign between God and the worshippers).
That is why groups such as Seventh-day Adventist Church and some other Sabbath-keeping Christians believe the specific seventh day still matters. From that perspective, the commandment is not just about worship generally, but about responding to God as an authoritative voice in the way He specifically appointed the 7th day. There are other comparative biblical examples which show where sincerity alone was not considered sufficient if God’s instruction was deliberately altered. For example, the situation with King Saul in 1 Samuel 15 not following God’s exact command; he modified God’s commandment and justified it by wanting to give more animal sacrifice to God. God said. “I am sorry that I ever made Saul king, for he has not been loyal to me and has refused to obey my command.” Samuel was so deeply moved when he heard this that he cried out to the Lord all night. – 1 Samuel 15:11. Altering God’s instructions to please God is not truth. That is why Jesus said “we must worship God in spirit and in truth” – Spirit is with strong faith, and truth is using God’s authoritative voice of the 7th day over man-made justification of using the 1st day.
At the same time, many other Christians — including most Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions — believe that worship on the 1st day developed because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which occurred on the 1st day of the week. They point to believers gathering on the 1st day (Acts 20:7), references to the “Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10), and the idea that Christ fulfilled aspects of the Old Covenant system. From their perspective, the central “end” is worshipping and honoring God through Christ, while the exact calendrical day is not binding in the same covenantal way.
This is where the “a means to an end” theme becomes important. The Bible repeatedly warns about two opposite dangers: (1) Ignoring God’s revealed instructions treating divine commands as unimportant, and (2) Turning the command itself into the ultimate end where preserving the rule becomes more important than love, mercy, justice, and human good. Jesus’ conflicts over the Sabbath often addressed the second danger. He did not present the Sabbath as evil or meaningless. Instead, He challenged interpretations that burdened people, neglected mercy,
or prevented doing good. For example, “It is lawful to do well on the sabbath days.” — Gospel of Matthew 12:12. So in biblical thought, true obedience is not usually portrayed as either “rules do not matter,” or “rules are everything.” Rather, God’s commands are understood as revealing His character and purposes.
The deeper debate among Christians is therefore, whether the 7th-day Sabbath itself remains a continuing divine appointment for all believers, or whether its deeper purpose finds fulfillment in Christ and Christian worship more broadly. Both sides generally agree that genuine worship of God matters more than empty formalism. Where they differ is whether changing the appointed day preserves or alters what God intended. The key is the statement made by Jesus: “But the time is coming—indeed it’s here now—when true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth” – John 4:23. Worship God in “spirit” is strong faith, and worship God in truth, is following God’s authoritative voice of which day did he commanded in Exodus 20:8