The History of the
Sanctuary Message

The most basic foundational teaching of the Christian religion is the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God. When Jesus asked the disciples, “But whom say ye that I am?”  Peter replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:15, 16) Sister White, in Desire of Ages, writes: “The truth which Peter had confessed is the foundation of the believer’s faith. It is that which Christ Himself has declared to be eternal life. ... Peter had expressed the truth which is the foundation of the Church’s faith....” (pp. 412, 413) While the truth about Jesus is the foundation of the Christian faith in general, the Advent movement was specifically based and founded on the message of the sanctuary.

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and the central pillar of the advent faith was the declaration: “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Daniel 8:14. (The Great Controversy, p. 409)

The correct understanding of the ministration in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith. (Letter - 208, 1906)

Uriah Smith, a pioneer, writer, and editor among the advent brethren wrote: “As is perhaps natural, the enemy of truth seems most persistent in trying to trouble and unsettle minds in reference to the sanctuary; for that is the citadel of our strength.” (Review and Herald, August 5, 1875)

The uniqueness of Seventh-day Adventism is neither the keeping of the seventh day Sabbath nor the belief of the imminent return of Jesus. There are other Sabbath keeping churches and other churches that believe in the pre-millennial, post-tribulational view of the soon return of Christ.  The uniqueness of the Advent movement is the understanding of the sanctuary message in type and antitype. LeRoy Froom, church historian and apologist, wrote that the sanctuary truth was “the one distinctive, separative, structural truth—the sole doctrinal teaching that identifies and sets” the Seventh-day Adventists “apart from all other Christians .... ” (Movement of Destiny, p. 541)

The roots of the Advent movement go back to William Miller and other Advent preachers such as Joseph Wolff and others who taught that the second coming of Jesus Christ was imminent. Miller based his belief on the now famous passage found in Daniel 8:14, “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”¹  Miller believed the 2300 days to be prophetic years that began in the year 457 B. C. and would terminate in 1843. The calculations were later revised to Oct. 22, 1844. Miller believed the “sanctuary” spoken of in Daniel to be the earth and that it would be cleansed by fire when Jesus returned for His people. When Christ did not return in 1844, the believers went through what became known as “The Great Disappointment.” Ellen White described it as follows:

When the time passed at which the Lord’s coming was first expected,—in the spring of 1844,—those who had looked in faith for His appearing were for a season involved in doubt and uncertainty. While the world regarded them as having been utterly defeated and proved to have been cherishing a delusion, their source of consolation was still the word of God. Many continued to search the Scriptures, examining anew the evidences of their faith and carefully studying the prophecies to obtain further light. The Bible testimony in support of their position seemed clear and conclusive. Signs which could not be mistaken pointed to the coming of Christ as near. The special blessing of the Lord, both in the conversion of sinners and the revival of spiritual life among Christians, had testified that the message was of Heaven. And though the believers could not explain their disappointment, they felt assured that God had led them in their past experience. (The Great Controversy, p. 391)

Truth Received After the Disappointment

The first Advent believer to gain an understanding of what had transpired during this disappointment was Hiram Edson, a “farmer preacher, leader of a group of early Adventists in western New York. He wrote out the experience some years later, and the story was preserved by his daughter, Mrs. O. V. Cross, of Florida. ” (Heavenly Visions, p. 111)

“Our expectations were raised high, and thus we looked for our coming Lord until the clock tolled twelve at midnight. The day had then passed, and our disappointment had become a certainty. Our fondest hopes and expectations were blasted, and such a spirit of weeping came over us as I never experienced before. It seemed that the loss of all earthly friends could have been no comparison. We wept and wept, till the day dawned. . . .

“I mused in my heart, saying: ‘My advent experience has been the brightest of all my Christian experience. Has the Bible proved a failure? Is there no God in heaven, no golden city, no Paradise? Is all this but a cunningly devised fable? Is there no reality to our fondest hopes and expectations?’. . .

“I began to feel there might be light and help for us in our distress. I said to some of the brethren: ‘Let us go to the barn.’ We entered the granary, shut the doors about us, and bowed before the Lord. We prayed earnestly, for we felt our necessity. We continued in earnest prayer until the witness of the Spirit was given that our prayers were accepted, and that light should be given - our disappointment explained, made clear and satisfactory.

“After breakfast I said to one of my brethren, ‘Let us go to see and encourage some of our brethren.’ We started, and while passing through a large field, I was stopped about midway in the field. Heaven seemed open to my view, and I saw distinctly and clearly that instead of our High Priest coming out of the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month, at the end of the 2300 days, He, for the first time, entered on that day into the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that he had a work to perform in the most holy place before coming to the earth; that He came to the marriage, or in other words, to the Ancient of days, to receive a kingdom, dominion, and glory; and that we must wait for His return from the wedding.” (Review and Herald, June 23, 1921. Quoted from Heavenly Visions, pp. 111)

Hiram Edson, with Dr. F. B. Hahn and O. R. L. Crosier, a young preacher and teacher, studied the Scriptures further and came to the conclusion that “the 2300 years was to reach to the opening of the ministry of our High Priest in the most holy of the sanctuary in heaven, foreshadowed by the last phase of the Levitical service in the typical earthly sanctuary. The service of the last day of the earthly sanctuary was called the cleansing of the sanctuary. That was exactly what the prophecy of Daniel 8:14 described as beginning in 1844. The whole matter was plain.  Christ had come to that service in the most holy above, as the time came in 1844.  Their mistake was explained. The prophecy had been fulfilled. They had looked to this earth instead of to the most holy place above. There in heaven above, the judgment hour had come, the time of cleansing the sanctuary records, as described in Daniel 7:10, 13.  This was light. It must be published to the believers.” (Ibid., p. 112)

Edson and Hahn asked Crosier to continue to study the sanctuary message from the Levitical type and write out their joint findings. Edson and Hahn agreed to publish the results. The matter was prepared in 1845 and early the next year they arranged for it to be printed in a Cincinnati second advent paper called the Day Star. Crosier’s article entitled, “The Sanctuary” was published in the Day-Star Extra, of February 7, 1846.²

Some of the first to read and accept the light as presented in Crosier’s article were James White and Joseph Bates. When Ellen White read the article she immediately recommended it to the brethren as “true light.” In a letter to brother Eli Curtis dated April 21, 1847, she wrote:

I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint. (A Word to the Little Flock, p. 12)

Crosier’s article began with a discussion as to what constituted the sanctuary. After defining the sanctuary of Daniel 8:14 to be the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus ministers for the believer, he related the type from the Old Testament to the antitype or true sanctuary as revealed in the New Testament, especially through the book of Hebrews. Crosier did not deal at length with the calculation of the 2300 years of Daniel 8:14; that had been done by the Advent preachers before. Crosier did deal at length with the meaning of what had begun to transpire October 22, 1844 and concluded his article by discussing the ending of the Day of Atonement with the banishment of the scapegoat.

The early Adventists made Christ’s high-priestly ministry the center of their message. Pioneers such as James White, James M. Stephenson, Joseph H. Waggoner (Father of E. J. Waggoner), Uriah Smith, Stephen Haskell and others wrote extensively on the subject of the final atonement in heaven.³

In 1872, the church published its first Statement of Beliefs. The opening paragraph noted that it was not put forth to be an authority among the brethren or for the purpose of securing uniformity among them. However, it was noted that the statement contained “what is, and has [had] been, with great unanimity held by them.” (A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practiced by the Seventh-day Adventists, 1872) Two of the twenty-one beliefs dealt directly with the high-priestly ministry of Christ:

That there is one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Eternal Father, ... that he .... lived our example, died our sacrifice, was raised for our justification, ascended on high to be our only mediator in the sanctuary in Heaven, where, with his own blood he makes atonement for our sins; which atonement so far from being made on the cross, which was but the sacrifice, is the very last portion of his work as priest according to the example of the Levitical priesthood, which foreshadowed and prefigured the ministry of our Lord in heaven. See Lev. 16; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:6, 7; & c. (Ibid., belief #2)

That the sanctuary of the new covenant is the tabernacle of God in Heaven, of which Paul speaks in Hebrews 8, and onward, of which our Lord, as great High Priest, is minister; that this sanctuary is the antitype of the Mosaic tabernacle, and that the priestly work of our Lord, connected therewith, is the antitype of the work of the Jewish priests of the former dispensation. Heb. 8:1-5, &c.; that this is the sanctuary to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, what is termed its cleansing being in this case, as in the type, simply the entrance of the high priest into the most holy place, to finish the round of service connected therewith, by blotting out and removing from the sanctuary the sins which had been transferred to it by means of the ministration in the first apartment, Heb. 9:22, 23; and that this work, in the antitype, commencing in 1844, occupies a brief but indefinite space, at the conclusion of which the work of mercy for the world is finished. (Ibid., belief #10)

The unanimity with which this belief was held was also expressed in the Yearbook of 1889 as follows: “The following propositions may be taken as a summary of the principal features of their religious faith, upon which there is, so far as we know, entire unanimity throughout the body.” Fifteen years after the 1872 statement, Uriah Smith, in 1887, wrote a five-point statement of the pioneer’s understanding of the sanctuary which was published in the Review & Herald:

1. That the sanctuary and priesthood of the Mosaic dispensation represented in shadow the sanctuary and priesthood of the present or Christian dispensation (Heb 8:5).

2. That this Sanctuary and priesthood are in heaven, resembling the former as nearly as heavenly things may resemble the earthly (Heb 9:23, 24).

3. That the ministry of Christ, our great high priest, in the heavenly Sanctuary is composed of two great divisions, as in the type; first, in the first apartment, or holy place, and secondly, in the second apartment, or most holy place.

4. That the beginning of his ministry in the second apartment is marked by the great prophetic period of 2,300 days (Dan 8:14), and began when those days ended in 1844.

5. That  the ministry he is now performing in the second apartment of the heavenly temple, is “the atonement” (Lev 16:17), the “cleansing of the Sanctuary” (Dan 8:14), the “investigative judgment” (Dan 7:10), the “finishing of the mystery of God” (Rev 10:7; 11:15, 19), which will complete Christ’s work as priest, consummate the plan of salvation, terminate human probation, decide every case for eternity, and bring Christ to his throne of eternal domination. (Uriah Smith, “Questions on the Sanctuary”, Review & Herald, June 14, 1887. Quoted from The Sanctuary Doctrine, pp. 1, 2)

The early Adventists saw in the fourteenth chapter of Revelation an announcement to be given to the world that this work of cleansing the sanctuary (the beginning of the judgment) had begun. “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” (Revelation 14:6, 7) Within this announcement was the call to worship God as the great Creator through the seventh-day Sabbath. This was the time that Paul referred to when speaking to Felix and his wife Drusilla when “he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come [future tense].” (Acts 24:25)

The understanding the early Adventists received concerning the 2300 day prophecy of Daniel 8:14 molded and shaped the Advent movement. The belief that Christ was to perform a work of ministry in the heavenly sanctuary was not of itself a new idea. The book of Hebrews clearly speaks of a ministry of Jesus in Heaven. However, the idea that this ministry was a work of atonement and essential to man’s salvation was new.

A New Sanctuary Doctrine Introduced

In 1955 and 1956, some of our leading ministers such as Roy Allan Anderson and LeRoy Froom met with Walter Martin and other evangelicals to discuss the Adventist faith. Martin submitted questions concerning Adventism and the Christian faith to the Adventists who responded with statements they claimed were “truly representative of the faith and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.” (Questions on Doctrine, p.9)⁴ While claiming that it was “not to be a new statement of faith,” these men took a 180 degree turn from the position of the pioneers.(Ibid. p. 8)  One of the questions that Walter Martin submitted was, “Since Adventists hold that complete sacrificial atonement was made on the cross, what do you teach concerning the ministry of our Lord as High Priest in heaven?” (Questions on Doctrine, p. 369) To this question, we answered in part, “Adventists do not hold any theory of a dual atonement.”(Ibid., p. 390 - Emphasis in the original.) We had stated to the evangelicals that we believed the atonement was completed and final on the cross and that the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary was not of itself a work of atonement.⁵ In fact the brethren wrote:

When, therefore, one hears an Adventist say, or reads in Adventist literature – even in the writings of Ellen G. White – that Christ is making atonement now, it should be understood that we mean simply that Christ is now making application of the benefits of the sacrificial atonement He made on the cross; that He is making it efficacious for us individually, according to our needs and requests.” (Ibid. pp. 354, 355 - emphasis in the original)

To this statement Elder M. L. Andreasen wrote:

If Sister White were now living and should read this, she would most certainly deal with presumptuous writers and in words that could be understood. She would not concede the right of anyone, whoever he might be, to change what she has written or interpret it so as to vitiate its clear meaning. The claim which Questions on Doctrine makes that she means what she does not say, effectively destroys the force of all she has ever written. If we have to consult an inspired interpreter from Washington before knowing what she means, we might better discard the Testimonies altogether.  May God save His people. (Letters to the Churches, Series A, No. 2)

Not only did Andreasen take issue with the brethren trying to interpret the statements of Ellen White, but he also took issue with them implying that all Adventist writers, including himself, shared these views.

Few would argue today that Anderson and Froom were bringing about a shift in the church’s theology. I had the opportunity a few years ago of talking to a  retired doctor who was a personal friend of both. He stated that Anderson and Froom both knew that they were charting a new course for the church, however, one they felt she needed to follow. While we cannot judge the motives of these men, the last forty years have produced not only a very different theology, but a very different church as well. Understanding the ministry of Jesus Christ is of the utmost importance. We have been told:

The subject of the sanctuary and the investigative judgment should be clearly understood by the people of God. All need a knowledge for themselves of the position and work of their great High Priest. Otherwise it will be impossible for them to exercise the faith which is essential at this time or to occupy the position which God designs them to fill. (The Great Controversy, p. 488)

Pioneers Understood the Scope of the Atonement

The pioneers of Adventism did not just see Christ’s ministry as one that made an atonement, but the atonement. The more contemporary leaders of the church today see the atonement being made at the cross. Andreasen suggested the following solution:

Much confusion in regard to the atonement arises from a neglect to recognize the two divisions of the atonement. Note what is said of John the Baptist, “He did not distinguish clearly the two phases of Christ’s work - as a suffering sacrifice, and a conquering king.” Desire of Ages, pp. 136, 137. The book Questions on Doctrine makes the same mistake. It does not distinguish clearly; in fact it does not distinguish at all; it does not seem to know of the two phases; hence the confusion. (Letters to the Churches, Series A, No. 6 - Emphasis is Andreasen’s.)

Was there an atonement made at the cross and does that preclude an atonement that would be made in heaven? Did the early Adventists have an understanding of two different phases of the atonement or a “dual atonement”? The evidence is that the pioneers did have such an understanding. However, in their zeal to lift the ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary to the proper level which the Bible elevates it to, the early pioneers of the church at times failed to emphasize the work of Christ on the cross as a work of atonement. The 1872 Statement of Belief places the emphasis in heaven.⁶

While the statement does not specifically state that no atonement was made at Calvary, it does say that the atonement that Christ is making in heaven now was not made on the cross. This does not mean that the pioneers did not understand the significance of Calvary, but rather reflects a desire on their part to proclaim the work of Christ in heaven. We have drawn statements from several early works of the pioneers which clearly express their belief of an atonement at the cross.

One of the first writings to deal with the subject was O. R. L. Crosier’s work, “The Sanctuary” first printed in the Day-Star Extra, February 7, 1846.⁷ Crosier wrote:

The atonement which the priest made for the people in connection with their daily ministration was different from that made on the tenth day of the seventh month. In making the former, they went no further than in the Holy; but to make the latter they entered the Holy of Holies - the former was made for individual cases, the latter for the whole nation of Israel collectively - the former was made for the forgiveness of sins, the latter for blotting them out - the former could be made at any time, the latter only on the tenth day of the seventh month.  Hence the former may be called the daily atonement and the latter the yearly, or the former the individual, and the latter the national atonement. (Day-Star Extra, Feb. 7, 1846 - emphasis in original)

It should be distinctly remembered that the priest did not begin his duties till he obtained the blood of the victim, and that they were all performed in the court (the enclosure of the Sanctuary), and that the atonement thus made was only for the forgiveness of sins.  These points are expressly taught in this chapter and the following one on the trespass-offering.  Here is an atonement, to make which, the priests only entered the Holy, and to make it they could enter that apartment “always” or “daily”. (Ibid., - emphasis in original)

J. N. Andrews, our first missionary, wrote:

If the law that condemned man could have been abolished, it would not have been necessary that the blood of Christ should be shed, that atonement might be made for its transgressors.  But the Son of God died because the law which man had broken could not be taken back. (The Perpetuity of the Royal Law, p. 24)

Is it asked, How then could Israel hope for salvation, while the law of God stood out before them? We answer, that beside “the royal law,” [James ii,8-12,] another law was given to Israel, viz. “the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” - Eph.ii,15; Col.ii,14-17. In all its sacrifices and offerings, this law pointed them forward to the one offering of Jesus Christ, as the great atonement for their transgressions.  (Thoughts on the Sabbath and the Perpetuity of the Royal Law. pp. 16, 17)

Elder James White, the first publisher of the 1872 statement, followed the lead of Crosier in calling the daily sin offering “the daily atonement.” He wrote: “The daily atonement was continued only 364 days before the services of the earthly Sanctuary changed, and the tenth day atonement for the cleansing of the Sanctuary was introduced.” (The Parable, p. 15) Writing in the Review & Herald he stated:

How is he treated, whom the Jews expected as their king?  For a throne, he receives the cross; for a diadem of glory and honor, he has prepared for him a crown of thorns; instead of acknowledging him as the King who sways the sceptre over all worlds, he has given into his hand the mock emblem of empire; instead of yielding that homage that was due to him, as Lord and Christ, they mockingly bend the knee before him, while he hangs, in agony, making atonement for transgression. Thus, was the Son of the Highest delivered, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, to make atonement for transgression, put an end to sin-offering, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.  Dan.ix,34. (Review & Herald, June 20, 1854 - Article entitled, “Vision on the Holy Mount”)

David Arnold, the first president of the New York Conference, in an article in the Review entitled, “The Oneness of the Church and the Means of God’s Appointment for its Purification and Unity,” wrote:

He [Satan] has not only contrived “to change times and laws,” by causing men to change the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, thus causing them to “transgress the laws, change the ordinance, break the everlasting covenant,” [Isa.xxiv,5; Ex.xxxi,16,] but he has also struck at the ordinances specially designed for the Christian church to keep in memory the atonement wrought out by the death and sufferings of Christ.  The appropriate emblem designed to keep in memory the burial and resurrection of Christ, he has also caused to be changed to sprinkling, thus wholly perverting its use. (Review & Herald, June 26, 1855)

Uriah Smith quoted from William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible in his book, Looking unto Jesus:

“Accordingly we find (see quotation from the Mishna in Outr. De Sacr. i.c.XV., 10) that, in all cases, it was the custom for the offerer to lay his hand on the head of the sin-offering, to confess generally or specially his sins, and to say, ‘Let this be my expiation.’  Beyond all doubt, the sin-offering distinctly witnessed that sin existed in man, that ‘the wages of that sin was death.’ and that God had provided an atonement by the vicarious suffering of an appointed victim.” (Looking unto Jesus, p. 141 - emphasis in original)

James M. Stephenson wrote a series of articles that appeared in the Review & Herald from August 22, 1854, to December 5, 1854. This nine part series was called “The Atonement.” Stephenson’s work was highly recommended by Elder James White. He noted: “THE ATONEMENT. - This important work is now completed.  The subject on which it treats is second to no other in importance; and no one who hopes for salvation through Jesus Christ should neglect to study the great plan of salvation as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.  This work opens a wide field of Bible truth and will be found a valuable assistant in the study of the great theme on which it treats.  We commend it to the notice of the friends of truth.” (Review & Herald, Dec. 19, 1854.)  Even though Stephenson left the Seventh-day Adventists late in 1855 to join up with the Messenger Party, (See SDA Encyclopedia, p. 870) we still find Elder White continuing to advertise Stephenson’s work “The Atonement” in the Review & Herald. In fact, it was advertised over 60 times in the church paper between 1856 and 1857! Apparently Elder White did not feel that Stephenson’s defection from the message devalued his earlier work. Stephenson wrote:

He [man] has violated a law which requires perfect obedience; hence he cannot, in any way, make satisfaction for such violation, from the fact that it was all he could possibly do in the first instance to render perfect obedience; and to suffer the penalty (death) due for his transgression would ruin him; hence the atonement made by Christ is justly termed a vicarious atonement.  (Review & Herald, Aug. 22, 1854 - emphasis in original)

We are prepared at this point of the investigation, to understand the relation the sacrifice of Christ, or the atonement, sustains to the law of God.  In presenting this part of the subject, I shall compare what I understand to be the Bible view, ... (Ibid., Nov. 21, 1854 - emphasis in original)

Of special interest are some statements from A. T. Jones and E. J. Waggoner whom Sister White called “Christ’s delegated messengers.” (See TM, p. 97)

Before the lamb was offered in sacrifice the individual who had brought it laid his hands upon its head and confessed his sins and it was “accepted for him to make atonement for him.” (The Consecrated Way to Christian Perfection, p. 63)

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus. He died to make an atonement, and to be a pattern for every one who would be his disciple. (G. C. Bulletin, 1895, p. 332)

This act of mercy on the part of God is eminently just, because in the first place the sin is against God, and he has a right to pass by offenses against him; and, further, it is just, because he gives his own life as an atonement for the sin, so that the majesty of the law is not only maintained, but is magnified. “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.” Ps. 85:10. God is just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus. All righteousness is from him alone. (Waggoner on Romans, p. 74 -This book was compiled from Signs of the Times articles published from October 1895 through September 1896.)

Ellen White clearly saw the death of Christ upon the cross and His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary as being essential for the salvation of man. She referred to both of these works in the typical service as an atonement. With heart moving words she wrote:

As you near the cross of Calvary there is seen love that is without a parallel. As you by faith grasp the meaning of the sacrifice, you see yourself a sinner, condemned by a broken law. This is repentance. As you come with humble heart, you find pardon, for Christ Jesus is represented as continually standing at the altar, momentarily offering up the sacrifice for the sins of the world. He is a minister of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. The typical shadows of the Jewish tabernacle no longer possess any virtue. A daily and yearly typical atonement is no longer to be made, but the atoning sacrifice through a mediator is essential because of the constant commission of sin. Jesus is officiating in the presence of God, offering up His shed blood, as it had been a lamb slain. Jesus presents the oblation offered for every offense and every shortcoming of the sinner. (Selected Messages, bk. 1, pp. 343, 344 - Ms. 50, 1900)

Referring to the death of Jesus as an atonement for sin she wrote:

The salvation of men depends upon a continual application to their hearts of the cleansing blood of Christ. Therefore, the LORD’s supper was not to be observed only occasionally or yearly, but more frequently than the annual passover. This solemn ordinance commemorates a far greater event than the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt. That deliverance was typical of the great atonement which Christ made by the sacrifice of his own life for the final deliverance of his people. (Spiritual Gifts. Vol. 3, p. 228)

Christ, our Mediator, is the one who gives the Holy Spirit; and by the office work of the Holy Spirit, the atonement made on Calvary is brought in contact with the soul of man to transform his character, and change his nature, until it can be said in heaven, “Ye are laborers together with God, wearing Christ’s yoke, bearing his burden.” (Youth’s Instructor, July 5, 1894)

Christ’s glory did not appear when he was upon this earth. He was then a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Men hid their faces from him. But he was following the path God had marked out for him. Still bearing humanity, he ascended to heaven, triumphant and victorious. He has taken the blood of his atonement into the holiest of all, sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat and his own garments, and blessed the people. (Ibid. July 25, 1901)

Christ applied himself diligently to a study of the Scriptures; for he knew them to be full of precious instruction to all who will make it the man of their counsel. He was faithful in the discharge of his home duties, and the early morning hours, instead of being wasted in bed, often found him in a retired place, meditating and searching the Scriptures, and in prayer. Every prophecy concerning his work and mediation was familiar to him, especially those having reference to his humiliation, atonement, and intercession. (Special Testimonies on Education, p. 177 - See also Youth’s Instructor, May 25, 1909.)