Will,

In the quotes above, Ellen uses the Bible to support her explanations.

DA 790.3 seems to imply it was a private meeting between Christ and the Father.
However, on studying a little more about the subject and taking a look at other sources, like 3SP 202, 203; 206.1, I realized that the accounts of the two ascensions do seem to be very similar.
Yet I don't see why the facts described, although very similar, can't have happened twice.

It wouldn't make sense for Christ to have been 40 days in heaven without being enthroned. Besides, the ceremony of His enthronement couldn't have lasted 50 days, being interrupted several times while He returned to earth.

Christ's ascension to heaven was the signal that His followers were to receive the promised blessing. For this they were to wait before they entered upon their work. When Christ passed within the heavenly gates, He was enthroned amidst the adoration of the angels. As soon as this ceremony was completed, the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples in rich currents, and Christ was indeed glorified, even with the glory which He had with the Father from all eternity. The Pentecostal outpouring was Heaven's communication that the Redeemer's inauguration was accomplished. According to His promise He had sent the Holy Spirit from heaven to His followers as a token that He had, as priest and king, received all authority in heaven and on earth, and was the Anointed One over His people. AA 38, 39

Ellen White says that Christ was on earth during the 40 days:

For forty days Christ remained on the earth, preparing the disciples for the work before them and explaining that which heretofore they had been unable to comprehend. He spoke of the prophecies concerning His advent, His rejection by the Jews, and His death, showing that every specification of these prophecies had been fulfilled. He told them that they were to regard this fulfillment of prophecy as an assurance of the power that would attend them in their future labors. "Then opened He their understanding," we read, "that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." AA 26.3

I don't see them MM, unless its cited in the book the quotes came from?

Will, No, I don't think there is something in the sanctuary service which typified this. It's a detail added by Ellen White. However, it helps us to understand why Jesus didn't permit Mary to touch and worship Him, saying He hadn't ascended to the Father (John 20:17) but later, on the same day, permitted other disciples to do it (Matt. 28:9).

Thanks Rosangela, that's what I'm talking about Makes perfect sense why Jesus would say one thing and do another, when the reason was regarding His ascension.
God Bless,
Will

Rosangela and Mountain Man: In reading your SOP statements which you have found, I actually find more support for my initial observation on EGW and this Ascension event: She was given a vision of what occurred but was not told sepcifically when it occurred. This chronological detail was left to her understanding and at first, in e.g., 3SP 202, 203; 206.1 and even in 1SG 74.1 she tied it to the first ascension. However, ca. 20 years later, in DA she tied it to the last ascension. It seems to me that this switch was done by “permission” and not “commission” (i.e., I was shown). As she indeed does not make explicit “I was shown” statements in the Conflict of the Ages books, it is difficult to know what was direct revelation and what was her understanding, however, based from her own past “corrections” it is easy to understand that even in saying “as Christ ascended from his disciples” that may not have been from a direct revelation, but merely an assumption. An example of this is seen in one of Alden Thompson’s (Inspiration p. 290-295) examples of such SOP corrections with EGW understanding of Christ’s words to his mother at Cana in 2SP 101, 102 vs. DA 146.

As quoted by Mountain Man, DA 790.4 shows that Christ began “receiving gifts” from the time of his first ascension. Again EGW in AA ties it directly to the end of a seemingly 10 day celebration of Christ coronation. However, while I believe that there was an extended coronation ceremony in heaven, that could have typologically lasted 50 days from Passover to Pentecost, I think again here that EGW was not precisely told that it was directly stemming from the final ascension. In other words that royal/coronet ceremony could have indeed begun with the first ascension and been celebrated for a few hours each day, over 50 days, probably as details in the GC up to then were gradually adjudged and resolved amongst the angels and other Heavenly beings. Christ would then occasionally make returns (at least 5 in total) back to earth.

Seems to me that EGW understood the wavesheaf to be perfectly applicable to both Christ and the resurrected saints.

So like many visions of EGW where she was given a series of events in succession, but later was given more information and revelations that showed that other things occurred in between, I also see that her ascension and coronation celebration visions were given as a whole, covering those 50 days, however she did not see this delineation and so, finally in DA and early AA and just tied everything together there.

I’ll add here, not as a knock against the SOP, but in proper understanding that EGW was first and foremost human, I always found AA and PK to be quite filmsy and relatively, in terms of revelatory content, “weak,” and that is understood by me to be because they were both hastily written and also while EGW was getting much older i.e., published in 1911 and (1917), respectively. By then, ca. 4 years from her death, old age was really taken its tole on her and she had indeed considerably curtailed her past active work, indeed to focus more on her writing. So I have found particularly AA in certain areas to be readily exegetically disproven as she was then mainly just restating things as they appeared in her main Bible version then. Indeed deeper exegesis on simply the translation of the Bible (e.g, KJV, ASV).

So I actually have found further substantiation for my chronological confusion observation here. To me, if she wrongly placed this event at the end of DA rather than right after the resurrection, does not affect my view of the SOP in any way. If she did not think that this could ever occurred. She would not, pre-emptively actually, urge SDA’s to make the Bible the final arbitrator in such matters.

So as her prior first ascension view best harmonizes all of the involved elements here, I see it as being the correct and only occurrence of this Heavenly procession, approval and ensuing coronation before Christ returned on earth, but also the start of a celebration/judgement (= a second fulfillment of Rev 12:7-12, completing this long lasting (state of) “war” and its aftermath) that probably lasted for 50 days.

Please point out the 5 times Jesus ascended to heaven.

In what ways? They seem to be more dissimilar.

I have enumerated and referenced these visits (and by natural implications, also “ascensions” even if solely to “return” to Heaven, which manifestly needed “powered assistance” e.g., Acts 1:9) in this prior post.

I think the cited SOP accounts on this clearly speak for themselves, actually, exactitude. One, the DA account, simply goes into deeper details, but the outline, issues and developments of events are identical. Which leads me to see that they are indeed one and the same. Which is why I ask, why would the same things occur twice when, in that first ascension account (3SP 203.1) the issue was already fully resolved as Jesus did go on to receive worship from the angels. A “redundancy” here really makes not Spiritual, Theological or Logical sense, at least to me. So the only issue here is how and why EGW was "chronologically" mistaken.