lesser measures could not have sufficed

If we believe that God is sovereign over the historical process, intervening as He sees fit to bring about His intentions for creation - that the historical process is guided by a loving Providence - how do we account for suffering? Why does a holy and all-powerful God endure our fallen humanity and allow suffering to continue?

The only ultimate answer lies in the cross of Jesus. If human beings have to bear suffering, God has borne more. Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, underwent mental anguish, human desertion, physical torture and a painful death. More, the sin that was swallowed up in his death created a schism in God, for the Son was alienated from the Father. That suffering is beyond our comprehension. 'No reason of man can justify God for His treatment of His Son; but whatever does justify it justifies God's whole providence with the universe, and solves its problem.' If the death of Jesus was necessary for putting right what was wrong with the world, it becomes evident that lesser measures could not have sufficed. Perhaps God has not abolished suffering by simpler methods because the death of Jesus guarantees something greater than the immediate abolition of suffering: present liberation from the power of sin and future liberation from the power of death. Further, victory over sin and death was achieved by suffering. This means that suffering can itself be triumphant. To suffer and yet to trust, to suffer and yet to hope - these things are vindicated by God. The cross alone makes the suffering that disfigures human history understandable within God's providence. (David Bebbington, Patterns in History, pp. 174-175)