The following post by MM comes from another thread. I thought it would be interesting to discuss it, as MM has done a good job articulating a view of the significance of the cross which is quite different than my own. I'm interested in the views of others, particularly in regards to the actions God took on the cross.

I will present MM's post first without comment, and then with my comments:
------------------------------------------------

Tom, the physical abuse Jesus received at the hands of the Romans was actually inconsequential compared to the soul anguish He suffered on Gethsemane and on the cross. I believe His soul anguish was caused by something our heavenly Father did.

I believe much of what the Father did was a mystery. We cannot totally understand it or completely explain it. We know He prevented Jesus from sensing His divine presence, and that this caused both of them great pain and sorrow. But there was more, much more, going on, things our dull minds will never be able to comprehend. We short change the cross, Christ, and ourselves if we think that’s all there was to Jesus’ soul anguish.

We know Jesus felt the woe and wrath of God, that He realized God’s hatred toward sin. Jesus had become sin for us and He felt the full brunt of God’s anger against sin – as if He were sin itself. We cannot know how much God hates sin, but we know He treated Jesus as if He were sin itself.

I cannot imagine God cutting sin any slack. I cannot imagine Him withholding one ounce of hatred and anger. I see, with limited perception, God unleashing all His pent up wrath and anger. To minimize how God treated Jesus on the cross is to undermine how much He hates sin.

And Jesus endured the combined wrath of God against sin as if He were sin itself. If we view things in this manner, rather than remembering how much the Father and Son love each other, I believe we can better understand just how much wrath Jesus really felt at the hands of an angry God.

It is easier for me to envision God taking out His hatred and vengeance upon sin than it is for me to imagine Him taking it out on Jesus. As such, I cannot begin to fathom the soul anguish Jesus suffered. Nor can I imagine God withholding His anger, or limiting His vengeance for any reason.

Such a display of wrath against sin is necessary for the salvation of man and the eternal security of the universe. Had God held back even one ounce of His wrath He and Jesus would have come short of saving us, and the entire universe would have been in peril. God could not risk losing everything by showing sin (i.e., Jesus) any sympathy on the cross.

Tom, the physical abuse Jesus received at the hands of the Romans was actually inconsequential compared to the soul anguish He suffered on Gethsemane and on the cross.
I agree.

I believe His soul anguish was caused by something our heavenly Father did.
I agree with this too, but I see what God did very differently than you.

I believe much of what the Father did was a mystery. We cannot totally understand it or completely explain it. We know He prevented Jesus from sensing His divine presence, and that this caused both of them great pain and sorrow.
God didn't prevent Jesus from seeing His presence. It was sin which did this.

But there was more, much more, going on, things our dull minds will never be able to comprehend. We short change the cross, Christ, and ourselves if we think that’s all there was to Jesus’ soul anguish.
Why? How would we be shortchanging the cross? Remember because of sin, Christ could not see through the portals of the tomb. He could not discern His Father's love. This mental anguish, caused by sin, broke His heart. If we all of this in the His sufferings on the cross, how are we short-changing the cross if we do not see more to His sufferings than this?

We know Jesus felt the woe and wrath of God, that He realized God’s hatred toward sin.
God hates sin because He loves the sinner, and sin cause pain, suffering, miseary and death. Christ Himself, being God, hated sin as much as God, so realizing God's hatred toward sin was nothing new to Him. What was new was the impact of sin on Christ's mind. Sin caused Christ to view God in a way He is not, the same as we see sin impacting others. For example, Christ felt like God was far away and abandoning Him when in reality, God was never closer to Christ than when He was suffering on the cross.

Jesus had become sin for us and He felt the full brunt of God’s anger against sin – as if He were sin itself.
Why?

We cannot know how much God hates sin, but we know He treated Jesus as if He were sin itself.
How do we know this? Sin is transgression of the law. Jesus was a personal being. What sense does it make to say that Christ was treated like a transgression?

I cannot imagine God cutting sin any slack.
What would happen if God cut sin slack? Would it take over? Is sin more powerful than love and truth?

I cannot imagine Him withholding one ounce of hatred and anger. I see, with limited perception, God unleashing all His pent up wrath and anger. To minimize how God treated Jesus on the cross is to undermine how much He hates sin.

God hates sin, and because of this pent up anger He must punish His Son, is that the idea? What about Jesus? Is He not God? Who did He take out His pent up wrath and anger against? Did He cut sin slack? What about the Holy Spirit? Who did He take out His pent up wrath and anger against?

And Jesus endured the combined wrath of God against sin as if He were sin itself. If we view things in this manner, rather than remembering how much the Father and Son love each other, I believe we can better understand just how much wrath Jesus really felt at the hands of an angry God.

This seems to me to be the opposite of the following consel:

quote:

---

We need to have higher and more distinct views of the character of Christ.... We are not to think of God only as a judge and to forget Him as a loving Father. Nothing can do our souls greater harm than this, for our whole spiritual life is molded from our conceptions of God's character. We have lessons to learn of Jesus' love.

---

It is easier for me to envision God taking out His hatred and vengeance upon sin than it is for me to imagine Him taking it out on Jesus. As such, I cannot begin to fathom the soul anguish Jesus suffered. Nor can I imagine God withholding His anger, or limiting His vengeance for any reason.

I think a big difference in how we see things has to do with what we perceive God's wrath to be. I understand that God's wrath is His giving His Son up. For example:

quote:

---

He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification. (Romans 4:25)

---

quote:

---

He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?(Romans 8:32)

---

Note how in Romans God's wrath is equated with His giving up:

quote:

---

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. (Romans 1:18-28)

---

You appear to perceive God's wrath against Christ to be something other than His giving Christ up, a releasing or pent-up anger as you call it. This seems to me to be a characture of God's character, as opposed to the revelation of it we see in Christ. One big problem with this idea is that it would have God the Father and God the Son doing exactly opposite things as it relates to the sin problem. One Being acts as the Victim whereas the Other takes the role of the Torturer. The truth is that both were victims, for God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. The cross is but a slight revelation to our dim senses of the pain which sin has always caused God, and this pain comes from the revelation of what sin does, something which God has known since the beginning, but which was not fully known by His creatures until the cross.

Such a display of wrath against sin is necessary for the salvation of man and the eternal security of the universe.

Inspiration doesn't say that. It says this:

quote:

---

It was God's purpose to place things on an eternal basis of security, and in the councils of heaven it was decided that time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his system of government. He had claimed that these were superior to God's principles. Time was given for the working of Satan's principles, that they might be seen by the heavenly universe. (DA 759)

---

Similarly this:

quote:

---

Satan's position in heaven had been next to the Son of God. He was first among the angels. His power had been debasing, but God could not reveal it in its true light and carry all heaven in harmony with Him in removing him with his evil influences. His power was increasing, but the evil was yet unrecognized. It was a deadly power to the universe, but for the security of the worlds and the government of heaven, it was necessary that it should develop and be revealed in its true light.(1SM 341)

---

Again this:

quote:

---

In the councils of heaven it was decided that principles must be acted upon that would not at once destroy Satan's power; for it was God's purpose to place things upon an eternal basis of security. Time must be given for Satan to develop the principles which were the foundation of his government. The heavenly universe must see worked out the principles which Satan declared were superior to God's principles. God's order must be contrasted with Satan's order. The corrupting principles of Satan's rule must be revealed. The principles of righteousness expressed in God's law must be demonstrated as unchangeable, perfect, eternal.

---

Nowhere does she say that a display of wrath against sin in the manner you are suggesting was necessary for the salvation of man or the eternal salvation of man. What she does say is that it was necessary that the corrupting principles of Satan's rule must be revealed, as well as the principles of rightouesness expressed in God's law, which is the principle of love. The cross did exactly this. It demonstrates the truth about God, the principles of His government and of Satan, and his principles. It is in so doing that the cross accomplishes our salvation and forever secures the universe.

Had God held back even one ounce of His wrath He and Jesus would have come short of saving us, and the entire universe would have been in peril. God could not risk losing everything by showing sin (i.e., Jesus) any sympathy on the cross.

It makes no sense to speak of showing sin sympathy. Sin is not a personal being to whom sympathy can be given. God shows us sympathy, who are personal beings, and who need it. He shows us sympathy be revealing His character to us, which demonstrates that God is a God who gives without end. The salvation of the cross comes by way of infinite giving.

Tom, thank you for explaining exactly how you perceive the wrath of God. One of these days we'll find out if you're right, that is, when we watch it first hand at the end of time.

To the best of my understanding you're both right, but you're talking past each other.

Why did Jesus die? Suffering our death is the focus of God's wrath in Jesus' sacrifice. How did Jesus feel our sin? - he felt our guilt, cummulated and undiluted. That was spiritual, psychological, mental & fatal torture that was legally required to suffer our punishment. For the sake of every sinner Jesus vicariously suffered our total guilt.

No sympathy for sin? Jesus himself asked the 'terrible twins' can you drink the cup I shall drink? and Jesus drained that cup. Suffering the fulness of guilt, he graciously and legally relieved all sinners of having to do so. Giving up his Son was the Father's suffering in that sacrifice, no doubt, and his heart broke too (but only the Son was able to die of a broken heart PTL); but God's wrath isn't his suffering: that's expecting oil and water to mix!

Our guilt and God's wrath rather complement each other. Sinning separates us from God's Spirit's presence, in our experience of guilt: that calls for God's mercy (PTL!). God's wrath is simply conscious, actual, permanent separation from God - a nightmare of the sinner's own making and the horror personally realised at the last day. Since God is love, voluntarily separating oneself from that love only because of pride of selfishness is lunacy in its psychiatric purity of mental horror, and God's wrath is only felt by the sinner on realising the wages of sin.

Eternal death is only retrieved by the unrepentant in spite of grace, and the Saviour who relieved them of such a fate in the first place. Eternal death isn't suffering, since it is annihilation, and so cannot be part of experiencing God's wrath; but total guilt - the unrepentant suddenly consciously realising their permanent separation from the source of eternal love & life: that is suffering.

The fire to finally cleanse the earth of sin can't be punishment, since it isn't permanent, but suffering one's full load of guilt is punishment, as such awareness consciously affects the psyche. That punishment is suffering God's wrath, which Jesus suffered during his quote of Ps 22:1, and he endured the suffering by faith.

Jesus' motivation of agape to die for us didn't save us: Jesus' death saved us, since he died our death, executing our sinful humanity in his body. Agape's truth can't redeem: only its actions are redemptive.

As for Father and Son misrepresenting their characters by One being the Other's Torturer, such a view of the cross highlights the Adventist trinity debate today. Why else Tom's rhetorical question about the Holy Spirit's participation in the handling of sin at the cross? That's another thread, though, in the private forum.

Colin, nice response. You touched on many issues; too many to treat well at any depth (at least at once; perhaps with time we'll get to the excellent issues you have raised).

First I'll start with this. MM wrote:

quote:

---

I cannot imagine Him withholding one ounce of hatred and anger. I see, with limited perception, God unleashing all His pent up wrath and anger. To minimize how God treated Jesus on the cross is to undermine how much He hates sin.

---

You wrote:

quote:

---

God's wrath is simply conscious, actual, permanent separation from God - a nightmare of the sinner's own making and the horror personally realised at the last day.

---

You also wrote that we are both right. However, I don't see how you can reconcile MM's view with mine. I think it would be difficult for me to think of a statement I disagree with more than the above one. I also don't see how that statement agrees with your own, which defines God's wrath as permanent separation from God -- a nightmare of the sinner's own making. Your statement looks to agree with Ellen White's statement:

quote:

---

The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. (DA 764)

---

As I said, I can see how what you wrote about God's wrath agrees with this, but I cannot see how what MM wrote agrees with this, or with what you wrote, or with what I wrote.

Colin, just a little background before getting into another point you raised. I started studying the 1888 message in 1990. While studying at Andrews, at the seminary, I wrote a 100+ paper entitled "The Gospel and Corporate Solidarity" or something similar, which was about corporate justification (also called "legal justification" as Wieland uses the term). I've read many of Wieland's books, as well as having had many private conversations with him. I'm well familiar with what Sequeira has written, and have read much of Prescott, Jones and Waggoner, as well as many others in doing my research on the corporate theme, as well as for my own edification.

The reason I'm mentioning this is to let you know I am well familiar with the ideas you are presenting. It is not the case that I do not understand what you are saying, or am not familiar with the concepts you are sharing. I am well familiar with FW 18, 19; 1SM 353; DA660; Romans 5:18; 2 Cor. 5:14, 15, 19 and other texts and statements from the Spirit of Prophecy. I just perceive the meaning of these statements in a somewhat different way than you.

I look forward to sharing thoughts on the subject of the meaning of Christ's death.

I vehemently disagree with any idea that suggests the wrath of God is experienced when an unsaved sinners separates himself from the love and mercy of God. It was the Father who initiated the separation that contributed to soul anguish Jesus suffered - not the other way around.

The Bible and the SOP make it very clear that there is more to the punishment and destruction of unsaved sinners in the lake of fire than merely realizing they lost out on heaven. That insight is purely selfish and hedonistic. Sin cannot punish and destroy unsaved sinners - only God can do that.

I'm away from my home computer right now so I don't have convenient access to the SOP, which means I won't be posting the quote, but in last chapter of the GC she describes how the unsaved sinners turn upon Satan and the leaders with maddness and anger once they realize they have lost everything.

That's not how Jesus felt when He suffered separation. What Jesus felt and what the unsaved sinners will feel is similar, but how they will react and respond to it is different than Jesus how did. How do you account for this difference? And, how do you account for the fact Jesus died on a cross and the unsaved sinners will not?

The quote above states the sinner "separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life." That's clear, isn't it? She also says the decision not to go to heaven is voluntary on the part of the wicked, and that God accepts their decision. God would have them be saved, but they choose not to.

The anguish of the wicked is not due simply or primarily to missing out on heaven, because they themselves choose not to go. The anguish is due to the interplay of sin and God's holy character:

quote:

---

By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire.

---

Regarding Christ's death, the Spirit of Prophecy states Christ felt the anguish the wicked will feel, and that it was this mental anguish, caused by sin, which caused His death. This same anguish will kill the wicked, just as it did Christ. Why wouldn't it? It killed Him.

The reason for the difference between Christ and the wicked is that Christ had faith. He chose to believe what He knew in His heart to be true about God, rather than the lies sin was impressing upon Him. The wicked do not have this conviction; they do not God, hence they have nothing to fall back on. They will be deceived by the impact of sin upon them, and will not choose to have anything to do with God.

God's reaction will be, "How can I give you up?" but He will respect their wishes, even though it breaks His heart.

Christ died on a cross, rather than in Gethsemanee , for example, in order that His death might be publicly seen. The purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal the character of God, and nothing reveals this better than His death. Had He died in Gethsemanee, His death would not have been seen.

I would think you would have to agree with this. Even from your perspective where you see Christ's death as a legal transaction whereby He purchased the right to forgive us, that debt could have been just as easily paid in Gethsemanee as on the cross.

But remember that the whole purpose of Christ's ministry was to reveal God to us that we might be set right with God.

quote:

---

Christ exalted the character of God, attributing to him the praise, and giving to him the credit, of the whole purpose of his own mission on earth,--to set men right through the revelation of God.(ST 1/20/90)

---

The cross was the best way to accomplish this.

The cross was the best way because the Jews failed to obey the law and the prophets. Otherwise the sacrifice of Christ would have played out differently. Like Isaac and Abraham, Jesus would have been slain by His Father.

Also, the story of David and Absalom teaches us that weeping over the final demise of the enemies of God is counterproductive. In the last chapter of the GC I do not read about holy angels weeping over the death of the wicked.

Have you read Hosea 11? Do you think God thinks of those who reject Him as enemies or children? If your child rejects you, do you cease to think of him/her as a child? Will you rejoice if your child is among the wicked and gets destroyed? Assuming you would weep for your lost child, do you think God would weep less than you?

Consider how Jesus wept for Jerusalem.