Good observations. A couple of passages which touch on these points.

Here's a thought from Waggoner in regards to Christ's mediation:

A different angle needs consideration here, this week, I think: Is Christ's ministry of atonement today really a "benefit" of the cross - an extension or part of the cross, or worthy of being identified and called a separate, extra work of salvation, based on the cross but different from it, like the role of the sacrifice is separate from the role of the priest?

Ever since the meaning of "benefits" of the cross or atonement (whatever SOP actually wrote about "benefits") was misstated in QOD to be mediation as commonly understood within the Reformation theology rather than the stronger character cleansing of full righteousness which we held to be the case, the use of the phrase has never really recovered the undiluted strength meant by Ellen White. Present atonement is also mentioned in the lesson, and Christ's on-going work today as High Priest is well stated and included this time, but the power of Christ's work in heaven isn't well distinguished from his preparatory work when God gave him to & for the earth.

Christ's death enabled us to be forgiven and reborn, ie. justified by faith, but his mediation isn't an application by him of his death to our lives as we work with him: he applies his life to us - his shed blood, having been necessary for the remission of sin in our justification, symbolising the life of the Lamb of God - as he imparts his character traits to our exercise of the justified mind of Christ he imputed to us to qualify us for heaven. That we receive his life traits day by day, as we renew & exercise our justified attitude/mind daily, makes Christ's mediatorial work as High Priest for us such a different purpose and scope of work to him giving his life for us, that it is more than the sound and sense of "benefits" of the cross. Renewal and transformation is so much more than the completed, righteous sacrifice of the atonement, that the finishing of the atonement by Christ working in us and not just for us warrants its own name: proud to refer to it as Christ's sanctuary service, ministry of final atonement, or something like that.

This line from Monday's section highlights the misunderstanding endemic perhaps in our thinking about Christ's intercession for us - pertaining to the finishing of the gospel mystery in us: God's glory restored.

We experience Christ's righteousness, as babes of the faith and as the mature saints who give a witness of kingdom to the whole world and receive the seal of God, by Christ working in us, not just for us. It is commonly taught that Christ's work on earth, to obtain salvation for mankind, was work for us, and that his intercession to make us righteous by faith is work in us, yet this sentence from the lesson misstates this intercession in us as understood by Sunday church theology to be forensic justification for us without any actual true inner character transformation of sanctification in us, since there is no effective renewal of the heart effected in us with justification. They may speak of rebirth by the Spirit, but they allocate no occasion for it in their theology.

This sentence from the lesson must therefore be changed by the word "for" being replaced by "in" or our understanding of the intercession of Christ for us is sorely mistaken.

Tom, in a similar way, but for entirely different reasons, Satan, like Jesus, will suffer with the sins of the saved. He will also suffer for the sins he tempted the lost to commit, but he will not suffer with the sins they committed - they will do that themselves.

Also, you quoted - "The scene on Calvary was the manifestation of what has taken place as long as sin has existed, and will take place until every man is saved who is willing to be saved: Christ bearing the sins of the world. He bears them now. (The Glad Tidings)

I disagree. Unless I am misunderstanding what Waggoner wrote here. Jesus did more than bear about in His body the sins of the world on Calvary. He was punished for them. He paid our sin debt of death for them on cross. He did not do this before Calvary and neither has He been doing it since. He died "once" for sins on the cross. He has not been dying for sins all along.

I disagree with this, too. Angels have always had direct access to God the Father. While Jesus was sojourning among us He wasn't in heaven to supposedly mediate between God and angels. Are we to assume, then, that during the time Jesus was here angels did not have access to God? If so, why does the sanctuary portray two angels standing on either side of the throne of God? Why are angels portrayed on the walls surrounding the MHP? Were they forced out of God's presence while Jesus was here?

Satan suffers for his responsibility, not as an arbitrary judgment that God foists upon him, but as the natural consequence with the truth being revealed to him, and the impact that has upon conscience.

Satan's suffering in relation to our sins is not similar to Jesus' suffering. The primary factor is not at all that the reasons for the suffering are different. The mechanism which causes the suffering is completely different.



It looks like you are.



Waggoner said nothing about this. Why not focus on what Waggoner actually said?



It doesn't look like you've understand what was being said here either. It's not a physical application, but a spiritual one. Angels have access to God spiritually by way of Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ is the One who reveals the father, for both man and angels, and every created being.

While all heaven suffered, not all heaven is our propitiation. Is there no unique sense in which Christ bore our sins and guilt? If there is, then what is it?

Backing up a bit, was not sin transferred to Jesus - the Lamb - such that He suffered the wrath and retribution of God?

I would prefer to see it read as both for us and in us in that sentence.

Regarding the unique sense in which Christ bore our sins and guilt:



I know this description is talking about a somewhat different circumstance, but I see the same principle applying. Jesus Christ was a man, and as a man He could perceive things in a way an angel could not. As John says, "He knew what was in a man." As God, He had a depth of capacity for suffering and understanding that a mere man would not have, as well as having a perception unclouded by sin.

Regarding sin and the lamb, this is a metaphor, a symbol. Sin is transgression of the law; wrong acts, thoughts and decisions. This cannot literally be transferred from one being to another. The idea of the symbol is that Jesus Christ, the innocent (like a lamb) suffered on behalf of the guilty. As the SOP puts it:



This is remeniscent of the suffering servant:



Regarding the wrath and retribution of God, the wrath of God is His giving over the "victim" of His wrath to the result of his choice. For example:



We see this same principle at work in regards to Christ:



Also:



So the wrath of God was revealed against Christ in that God delivered Him up to His enemies, and to the result of our sin, for Christ to receive the result of His choice, which was to voluntarily bear our sin in our behalf.

Why? If Jesus' only purpose in dying was to impress sinners with the self-sacrificing love of God and in turn hope to motivate them to repent and obey God, why would He have to bear the sins of the world, why would He have to suffer as a sinner? Wouldn't it suffice to simply suffer soul anguish and die? Why did the Father have to withdraw His sweet presence? Why did He have to treat Jesus as though He committed the sins of the world?

If the only purpose is what I stated above, it seems like cruel overkill for the Father to also unleash His undiluted wrath upon Jesus. Seems to me it would be more in keeping with this purpose to simply have Jesus lay down on an altar and let the Father slay Him like in the story of Abraham and Isaac. No need to confuse the issue by unnecessarily making Jesus suffer and die for the sins of the world.