As a college student with a theology major, I wrote my first theological research paper. The passages I chose to consider were Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28—passages which Seventh-day Adventists have traditionally regarded as referring to Satan and the origin of evil in heaven. Following the lead of various higher-critical commentaries, I came to the unsettling conclusion that neither passage made any reference to Satan or the origin of evil in its original context. Thus, in my thinking major biblical supports for the Adventist understanding of the rise of the great controversy crumbled. Inasmuch as Ellen G. White supported the “Satan, great controversy” view of these passages,¹ I also subconsciously entertained doubts about the veracity of her interpretations of Scripture.

Since that time, to my delight I have found compelling exegetical evidence supporting the conclusion that both Isaiah and Ezekiel were indeed referring to Satan in these passages. Much of this evidence is set forth in an Andrews University dissertation by Jose Bertoluci entitled “The Son of the Morning and the Guardian Cherub in the Context of the Controversy Between Good and Evil.”² Bertoluci has dealt a devastating blow to the critical views that Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 only describe earthly, historical enemies of Israel and not Satan. He shows how in each passage there is a movement from the local, historical realm of earthly kings to the heavenly supernatural realm describing Lucifer/Satan and the rise of the great controversy. My own study has uncovered further evidence supporting this conceptual shift in Ezekiel 28—from earthly “prince” (nagid, the king of Tyre, vv. 1–10) to cosmic “king” (melek, the supernatural ruler of Tyre, Satan himself, vv. 11–19)—and I have discovered that this judgment upon the fallen cherub comes at the climactic center of the whole book.³ I now rejoice that the origin of evil in Lucifer the covering cherub is solidly grounded in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28. White’s interpretation of these passages is sound.

The approach I share in this article concerning White’s writings comes from the perspective of my academic discipline as biblical theologian and exegete. Since becoming a seminary professor at Andrews University over thirty-five years ago, I have had numerous opportunities to consider White’s insights while seeking to understand the meaning of biblical passages in the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

Over and over again I have been surprised to find that nuances of the biblical texts detected only in my study of the original languages and not reflected in most modern translations and commentaries were embedded in White’s comments on those texts. Conversely, I have frequently come to the often-serendipitous discovery that White’s detailed insights concerning biblical passages, which I had assumed were not mentioned directly in the Scriptures, are actually supported by a close reading of the biblical text in the original languages. These experiences have repeatedly reminded me of statements which White made to the effect that since little heed is given to the Bible, her writings are a lesser light to lead us to the greater light (i.e., Scripture).⁴

Before sharing specific examples, I offer some preliminary considerations:

In this article I do not intend to imply that if one simply studies White’s writings, there is no further need to study Scripture. To the contrary, White’s inspired insights into the biblical text motivate us to go back to Scripture, to search deeply to see if her insights are in fact supported by biblical exegesis, and then to share the special truths of the Advent movement from Scripture alone, not from her writings. White has certainly not exhausted the meaning of these and other Scriptures. Her sampling of buried treasures to be found in the Bible should prompt us to mine the Scriptures for ourselves, utilizing all available exegetical tools to find additional riches contained therein.

It is also important to remember that White sometimes uses biblical phraseology in her writings where it is clear from the context that she is not seeking to give specific exegetical insights regarding a given biblical passage. We may compare this with the common English expression “I have escaped by the skin of my teeth.” Those of us who use this biblical allusion in ordinary conversation are clearly not trying to exegete Job 19:20, the original source of this citation. Frank Hasel well describes this pastoral use of Scripture: “Ellen White also uses words of Scripture that were familiar to her, and applied the message or encouragement of a biblical passage to a current situation even though the original biblical context may have addressed a different situation.”⁵

I am not suggesting in this article that it is necessary to know Greek and Hebrew in order to have a solid understanding of the Bible or the writings of Ellen G. White. The main message of Scripture is plain in whatever modern-language versions one may read. But knowledge of the original languages is helpful for specialists in biblical studies, as scholars attempt to plumb the depths of meaning in a given biblical passage for all its beauty and richness.

Furthermore, I am not arguing for a theory of verbal inspiration, either for the Bible writers or for White. Both the Bible and White make clear that God inspired His prophets with thoughts, and did not verbally dictate the message to them. At the same time, both the Bible writers and White express as much dependence upon the Holy Spirit in communicating the inspired message as in receiving it, sometimes involving divine guidance in selecting appropriate words to express the truth. The Holy Spirit imbued human instruments with divine truth in thoughts and so assisted them in writing that they faithfully committed to apt words the things divinely revealed to them.⁶

Finally, I do not claim that I have solved all the difficulties related to White’s allusions to biblical texts, or in areas where White presents insights into Scripture which I have not been able to verify by detailed biblical exegesis. In some cases, White may have been shown in vision details of biblical history that are not set forth in the biblical record. In other cases, apparent discrepancies have been pointed out by certain modern researchers between some of White’s descriptions of historical events and the biblical record of those events. I once had a long list of these apparent discrepancies, but the list has been steadily shrinking before the light of further study. I have a “shelf” in my mind where unsolved problems like these are resting, until further light shines upon them. For some problems I no doubt will have to wait until Christ Himself explains them to me in the hereafter!

But dozens—yes, scores—of times I have encountered truth from the “lesser light” and then later have come to realize that it was part of the “greater light” already, if studied deeply. Many other times I have found some rich treasure in the Scriptures revealed only in the original languages, and then later discovered that White had captured this insight as well, apparently without any knowledge of the original languages (or of secondary sources pointing out this insight). On these occasions my heart has burned with joy (like the disciples on the way to Emmaus, Luke 24:32), as Scripture has been illuminated, and White’s prophetic gift confirmed. In what follows I will share a few of these personal “burning heart” experiences, in relation to the Old and New Testaments in the original biblical languages. I begin with some Old Testament examples.

Genesis 1:26–27: The Image of God (Imago Dei)

At the very beginning of the Bible one encounters the description of Adam and Eve being made in the image of God (Gen 1:26–27). In White’s commentary on this creation account, she writes that “Man was to bear God’s image, both in outward resemblance and in character.”⁷ There has been much discussion regarding the imago Dei or “image of God.”⁸ Genesis 1:27 states the divine deliberation: “Let us make man in Our image, after Our likeness.”⁹ In my examination of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:27,¹⁰ I have found that the two words translated “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demut), while overlapping in semantic range, tend to emphasize different aspects. A study of the usage of these two terms in Scripture reveals that tselem emphasizes the external, concrete form,¹¹ whereas demut emphasizes the inward, abstract character qualities,¹² and when juxtaposed, as in Genesis 1:27, the two terms denote the external form and inward characteristics respectively.¹³ White had no training in biblical Hebrew, and yet she was on the mark when she wrote that the image of God consisted of both “outward resemblance and character.” This reading of White is remarkable because in the nineteenth century biblical scholars were virtually unanimous in viewing God along the lines of Greek dualism as “timeless”—beyond space and time—and thus not having an outward form, and therefore any interpretation of the imago Dei that included “outward resemblance” was rejected out of hand.¹⁴

Genesis 2:25: Garments of Light and Glory

White describes Adam and Eve when they were created as clothed in “garments of light and glory.”¹⁵ Is this insight only in White’s writings, or is it already implicit in Scripture? In Genesis 2:25, Moses depicts Adam and Eve at creation as “naked.” The word for “naked” in this verse is ‘arom, which elsewhere in Scripture frequently refers to someone not fully clothed or not clothed in the normal manner.¹⁶ Genesis 2:25 does not explicitly indicate in what way Adam and Eve were without clothes in the normal sense (“normal” from the post-fall perspective).

But such further detail may be deduced from another major creation account in the Bible: Psalm 104. This Psalm moves through the seven days of creation in the exact same order as in Genesis 1, except that it fills in many details not mentioned in Genesis 1.¹⁷ Psalm 104 provides a poetic description of God’s creative work, and also gives at least one indication of His appearance, or rather, his “clothing.” Note Psalm 104:1–2, which parallels the creation of light in Genesis 1: “Bless the LORD, O my soul; O LORD, my God, You are very great; You are clothed in glory and majesty, wrapped in a robe of light” (NJPS). If God is portrayed as clothed with light and glory at creation, we may reasonably deduce that the first human beings, who were created in the image and likeness of God both in outward resemblance and in character (as previously discussed), were similarly clothed. They were not clothed in the “normal manner” from a post-fall perspective, but were rather clothed like the One in whose image/likeness they were made. White’s description of the clothing of Adam and Eve before the fall thus may be logically deduced from the biblical data alone, when one examines the Hebrew terminology for nakedness and the intertextual connection between the Genesis creation narrative and Psalm 104.

Genesis 3:7: Nakedness of Soul

What is not often realized is that Genesis 2 and 3 utilize two different Hebrew words for “naked.”¹⁸ As we have seen, the word for “naked” in Genesis 2:25 means “not clothed in the normal manner,” and implies (in light of the imago Dei and Psalm 104:1–2) that they were clothed with light and glory like God. By contrast, in Genesis 3:7, 10–11 the Hebrew word for “naked” is ‘erom, which elsewhere in Scripture consistently appears in a context of total (and usually shameful) exposure, describing someone “utterly naked” or “bare.”¹⁹ As a result of sin, the human pair finds themselves “utterly naked,” bereft of the garments of light and glory, and they seek to clothe themselves with fig leaves.

The nakedness of Adam and Eve described in Genesis clearly involves more than physical nudity, for Adam depicts himself as still naked when God comes walking in the cool of the day, even though already covered with fig leaves (Gen 3:10). The nakedness of Genesis 3 refers not only to the loss of the robes of light and glory, but includes a sense of “being unmasked,”²⁰ a consciousness of guilt, a nakedness of soul. And this is exactly how White describes the guilty pair’s nakedness:

After his transgression Adam at first imagined himself entering upon a higher state of existence. But soon the thought of his sin filled him with terror. The air, which had hitherto been of a mild and uniform temperature, seemed to chill the guilty pair. The love and peace which had been theirs was gone, and in its place they felt a sense of sin, a dread of the future, a nakedness of soul. The robe of light which had enshrouded them, now disappeared, and to supply its place they endeavored to fashion for themselves a covering; for they could not, while unclothed, meet the eye of God and holy angels.²¹

Once again, White’s insights are in harmony with the biblical data, when viewed in light of the original Hebrew terminology.²²

Genesis 4:1: Adam and Eve’s Expectation That Cain Would Be the Messiah

Another example of the correlation between Scripture in the original language and White’s insights is found in her comments on the thinking of Adam and Eve when their first child Cain was born. White writes, “The Saviour’s coming was foretold in Eden. When Adam and Eve first heard the promise, they looked for its speedy fulfillment. They joyfully welcomed their first-born son, hoping that he might be the Deliverer. But the fulfillment of the promise tarried.”²³ Can this thinking of Adam and Eve be substantiated from Scripture? Some years ago I was rereading Genesis 4 in my Hebrew Bible and serendipitously came across something I had never noticed before in verse 1. The verse reads, “Now Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived and bore Cain and said, ‘I have gotten a man’”—and then most English versions translate—“with the help of the Lord” (e.g. ESV, NIV, NJPS). But note that in modern versions of the Bible which place the supplied words in italics (e.g., KJV, NKJV, NASB), the phrase “the help of” is not present in the Hebrew original.

In the Hebrew of this verse, immediately after the word “man [Heb. ’ish]” comes the particle ’et, which can either represent the preposition “with” or is an indicator that the next word is a direct object in the sentence. Translating simply as a preposition, “with the Lord,” does not really make any sense in the immediate context. One must add “the help of” as many modern translations do, but an examination of other passages in Scripture using this particle as the preposition “with” reveals no clear examples where it can mean “with the help of.” Thus, the addition of “the help of” seems unlikely as the best translation.

The alternative that remains is to take the particle ’et as the sign of the direct object, which in English can be represented by an em dash. In harmony with Hebrew syntax, and the allusions to ’ish in Genesis 2–3, the direct object here should then be translated as a unique title—“[the] Man”—to match the definite name “Yahweh.”²⁴ So the translation of this verse would be: “I have gotten [the] Man—Yahweh! This translation makes good sense, and the grammatical construction is paralleled elsewhere in Scripture.²⁵ Luther seems to take it this way in his 1545 German Bible translation: “Ich habe den Mann, des Herrn” (“I have the Man, the Lord”). Evangelical scholars such as Walter Kaiser have carefully analyzed this passage and have come to the same conclusion.²⁶ This text implies that when Adam and Eve were naming Cain, they were thinking he might be the promised Messianic Seed, Yahweh Himself. They hoped that the Messiah had come, only to find out that Cain was not the Messiah but a murderer.

White, under inspiration, wrote what was consistent with the biblical data as revealed in the Hebrew original.

Genesis 4:7: Insights into the Cain-Abel Narrative

Let us look at one more example in Genesis where White’s insights correlate with the best (but often overlooked) understanding of the Hebrew original of a biblical passage. In Genesis 4 we find the familiar narrative of Cain and Abel. After Cain and Abel brought their respective offerings to the Lord, and the fruit of Cain was rejected while the animal sacrifice of Abel was accepted, Cain’s “face fell” (v. 5). The Lord came to him, and said (v. 7, usually translated thus): “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire [Heb. teshuqah] is for you, but you must master [Heb. mashal] it” (NASB1995). According to this usual way of translation, the picture is a negative, sinister one, in which sin is compared with a demon or wild beast that desires to dominate over Cain, but Cain must master it.

A careful study of Genesis 4:7 by one of my former doctoral students has challenged this negative interpretation based upon a close reading of the Hebrew text.²⁷ My own more recent study builds upon his analysis, looking at further facets of the Hebrew original, and arrives at the same basic conclusion.²⁸ I share here only a few salient points of the research.

First, the possessive pronoun “its/his” (in the phrase “its desire”) in this verse is in the masculine, and therefore, according to a fundamental rule of Hebrew grammar in which the pronoun agrees with its antecedent noun in gender, the noun to which “its/his” refers should be in the masculine. But the word for “sin” is in the feminine! The nearest possible masculine antecedent to the masculine possessive pronoun in this verse is “Abel” (v. 4)!

Second, Abel is the only one who fits in the literary flow of the overall shame-honor plot of the narrative. Abel is the one to whom Cain’s anger/displeasure is implicitly directed in previous verses. In context, this displeasure is because he presumed that he had lost (or was in danger of losing) his firstborn status by his noncompliance with the prescribed ritual. Cain had been “shamed” and his face “fell” (in modern shame-honor language, he “lost face”). God promises that if he does well he will be accepted—literally, his “face will be lifted up”—his honor will be restored. All of these points are supported by key Hebrew terminology in the text.²⁹

Hence, the translation of Genesis 4:7 becomes a positive one: “His [Abel’s] desire will be for you, and you [Cain] will rule over him.” God promises Cain that if he does well, the “desire” (or respect) of Abel for Cain will be restored, and Cain will have the predominance of the firsborn son as before. This translation is supported by the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX): “to thee shall be his submission/turning, and thou shalt rule over him.”³⁰

Even though (to my knowledge) no modern Bible versions in White’s day (or even today) follow the LXX and give this positive translation implied by the Hebrew original, White favors this translation already in several of her earliest statements interpreting Genesis 4:7. She clearly regards this passage (v. 7b) as referring to Cain and Abel in the context of restoring Cain’s firstborn honored status with regard to Abel. Note her citation of Genesis 4:7b in the following:

Abel’s offering had been accepted; but this was because he had done in every particular as God required him to do. If Cain would correct his error, he would not be deprived of his birthright: Abel would not only love him as his brother, but, as the younger, would be subject to him. Thus the Lord declared to Cain, “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”³¹

Three more times White either cites or paraphrases Genesis 4:7b, giving this same basic interpretation:

“And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Abel’s offering had been accepted; but this was because Abel had done in every particular as God required him to do. This would not rob Cain of his birthright. Abel would love him as his brother, and as the younger, be subject to him.³²

The angel tells Cain that it was no injustice on the part of God, or partiality shown to Abel; but that it was on account of his own sin, and disobedience of God’s express command, why he could not respect his offering—and if he would do well he would be accepted of God, and his brother should listen to him, and he should take the lead, because he was the eldest.³³

There had been no injustice on the part of God, and no partiality shown to Abel; if he would do well he would be accepted of God, and his brother should listen to him, and he should take the lead, because he was the eldest.³⁴

Remarkably, White follows the biblical data in the original Hebrew and an interpretive tradition (the LXX) regarding Cain and Abel which was not represented by the modern translations of her day.

Exodus 20: The Decalogue

Another example of White’s insight capturing the nuance of the original Hebrew is found in regard to the Ten Commandments, recorded in Exodus 20. White makes an astounding declaration about the Decalogue: “The Ten Commandments . . . are ten promises. . . . There is not a negative in that law, although it may appear thus.”³⁵ Such a statement seems jarring, because when one reads the Ten Commandments in English (or another modern language), they seem to be replete with negatives. Eight of the ten commandments start with the words “Thou shalt not . . .” How could White say there is no negative in the Decalogue? I had always understood this in the sense of “All His biddings are enablings,”³⁶ but I now believe there is a more direct, satisfying—and yes, more biblical/exegetical—explanation.

In light of White’s statements, I looked closely at the Hebrew original of the Decalogue, examining the grammatical forms that are used in each one of the Ten Commandments. To my surprise, I found that the eight commandments which begin with “Thou shalt not,” according to Hebrew grammar—with the negative particle lo’ (not) plus the imperfect—can either be translated as negative prohibitions³⁷ or can be translated as “emphatic promises”!³⁸ In harmony with the grammatical sentence structure one can translate these commandments thus: “[I promise you], you will not have any other gods before Me! . . . You will not make for yourself any carved image. . . . You will not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” “[I promise you that] you will not kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness, covet.” Even the fourth and fifth commandments, which are not framed in the negative—“Remember the Sabbath . . .” “Honor your father and mother . . .”—do not use the imperative, which is the normal way of giving a positive command in biblical Hebrew. Rather, they use the infinitive absolute, which in Hebrew can be translated as an “emphatic imperative (command)”³⁹ or as “emphatic promises.”⁴⁰ And so each of the commandments can be translated either as a command or a promise.

White’s insight is further reinforced by recognizing the significance of the prologue to the Ten Commandments. One’s experience (and consequent translation) of the “Ten Words” all depends on where one begins the Ten Commandments. As a child I was taught the Decalogue starting with Exodus 20:3, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” But that is not where the Ten Commandments begin. That is not where God starts speaking. The Decalogue begins in verse 2 where He says, “I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” In effect, God says, “I have redeemed you by the blood of the Lamb. You are already saved and now I am going to promise you power to keep My law.” If one starts in verse 2, the commandments that follow become promises: “I promise you, you won’t have any other gods before Me. You won’t take My name in vain. You will remember the Sabbath. You will honor your father and mother!”⁴¹

“There is not a negative in that law.” White did not know Hebrew grammar, but under prophetic inspiration she provided a gospel-centered insight into the Word that is supported by the original language of the biblical passage.

Exodus 25:9, 40: The “Miniature Model” of the Heavenly Sanctuary

I spent nearly two years of my life writing my doctoral dissertation on the subject of typology. As a major part of my research I examined the various Hebrew and Greek words in the Old and New Testament that are translated “type” or “pattern.” In the Old Testament I concentrated on Exodus 25:9, 40 where Moses was told to make everything like the “pattern” (Heb. tabnit) that he was shown on the mountain. I did a detailed word study of the Hebrew term tabnit (which the LXX translates in Exodus 25:40 as typos or “type”), and examined how it was used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. After about six months of intensive research on the meaning of this Hebrew term, I concluded that the word tabnit in the Old Testament usage of Exodus 25:9, 40 implies a “miniature model” of an original—so that what Moses saw on the mountain was a miniature model of the original sanctuary which he had seen in heaven. I documented this research in my (now-published) doctoral dissertation.⁴²

Shortly after defending my dissertation, I was urged by one of my professors who had served on my dissertation committee to present the results of this research to a scholarly meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature. With fear and trepidation, I presented my findings to a room full of critical scholars, most of whom did not even believe in the reality of the heavenly sanctuary or the veracity of Scripture. After the presentation came the time for questions, and almost everyone in the room raised his/her hand! I looked for the trap door to open under my feet and release me from the imminent onslaught of criticism. But there was no escape. I prayed and began acknowledging the raised hands. To my shock and amazement (and likewise to the shock of the critical scholar moderating the meeting), everyone who made a comment not only agreed with my research but presented further evidence that he/she had discovered in favor of my conclusion!

Shortly after returning from the Society of Biblical Literature presentation, during my devotional reading in one of White’s early books, Spiritual Gifts, I fortuitously encountered this electrifying statement: “God presented before Moses a miniature model of the heavenly sanctuary, and commanded him to make all things according to the pattern shown him in the mount.”⁴³ I wondered, how did White arrive at this insight into the meaning of the word tabnit as “miniature model” of the original, without any knowledge of Hebrew, and no modern versions or contemporary commentaries providing this translation (at least none that I have been able to discover so far)? This whole experience was a striking confirmation to me of the accuracy of my conclusion regarding the meaning of tabnit, of the veracity of the typological approach toward the sanctuary doctrine, and especially of the reality of White’s prophetic gift.

Ezekiel 28: Satan’s Celestial Slander of the Character of God

In the introduction to this article, I described how Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 clearly depict the fall of Lucifer and the rise of the great controversy. Until very recently, however, one crucial aspect of the rise of the great controversy that is familiar to Adventists from White’s descriptions remained for me without direct biblical substantiation. In the books Patriarchs and Prophets and The Great Controversy some seventeen pages delineate how before his expulsion from heaven Satan went about among the angels slandering the character and government of God as unjust.⁴⁴ This major scene of the Great Controversy story can at best only be inferred from biblical statements about Satan as “a murderer from the beginning, and . . . a liar” (John 8:44) and “the accuser of our brethren . . . [being] cast down [from heaven]” (Rev 12:10). But is there a more explicit biblical foundation for Satan’s insidious activity of celestial slander even before the creation of this world, as described by White?

By serendipity I was examining a claim by one scholar that much of the description of Satan in Ezekiel 28 is only symbolical and not literal, since—it was argued—Satan is described as engaged in “an abundance of trading” (v. 16) and obviously Lucifer was not literally a heavenly merchant.

I decided to examine the Hebrew word for “trading” (Heb. rekullah) and came to a surprising and revealing discovery. The verb rakal from which this noun derives literally means to “go about, from one to another (for trade or gossip).”⁴⁵ The noun derivative rakil means “slander, tale-bearer,” and appears six times in the Old Testament, once in Ezekiel (22:9). The other noun derivative rekullah—which is the word for “trading” found in Ezekiel 28:16—appears only in the book of Ezekiel, and all four occurrences come in the section dealing with Tyre (26:12; 28:5, 16, 18). Most modern versions translate this word throughout as “traffic, trade” or “merchandise,” but since the word only appears in this section of the Bible, the context must be the final determiner of meaning.

In descriptions of the merchant city of Tyre, the meaning “traffic” or “trade” fits the context well (Ezek 26:12; 28:5). But with reference to the portrayals of the covering cherub in 28:16, 18, the notion of “trade” does not seem to naturally fit the context. This is recognized by the noted critical exegete Walther Eichrodt, who comments on this passage, “The description of the trespass is a little unexpected, since trade is here suddenly represented as the source of iniquity.”⁴⁶

Since this noun is derived from the verb which means “go about, from one to another—either for trade or gossip/slander,” it appears very likely that Ezekiel deliberately chooses this rare Hebrew word (instead of the more common term sakhar) because it has a potential double entendre. Ezekiel here seems to use a literary device known as a paranomasia or a play on words. Inhabitants of the historical mercantile city of Tyre (mentioned in the first half of Ezekiel 28) clearly “went about, from one to another” for trade among the nations. Likewise, the ultimate ruler of Tyre, Satan (vv. 11–19), in the heavenly “mountain of God” also “went about, from one to another”—not for trade of goods, but for gossip or slander among the angels. Both the earthly and supernatural rulers were literally engaged in “trafficking”—one in merchandise, and the other in slander against God.⁴⁷

The immediate context of Ezekiel 28:16 portrays the fall of the covering cherub from perfection (v. 15) to pride (v. 17). In this setting verses 16 and 18 trace his ensuing steps to perdition. We can best translate verse 16: “By the abundance of your slander [rekullah] you [Satan] became filled with violence within, and you sinned. Therefore I cast you as a profane thing out of the mountain of God.” With deft brush strokes Ezekiel paints the picture of Lucifer’s going about in slander against God, which eventually ripens into open and violent rebellion. Verse 18 reveals that after his expulsion from heaven the fallen cherub continues on earth his “iniquity of slander [rekullah]” against God, and the verse also records the divine sentence of Satan’s destined fiery destruction because of his “multitude of iniquities.”

A closer look at the nature of Satan’s slander in the original Hebrew also corroborates White’s repeated statements that Lucifer was accusing God of being unjust in His law and in His treatment of himself. For example, White states, “The exaltation of the Son of God as equal with the Father was represented as an act of injustice to Lucifer, who, it was claimed, was also entitled to reverence and honor.”⁴⁸

According to Ezekiel 28:15, the guardian cherub was “blameless” (Heb. tamim) in his ways until “iniquity” (Heb. ‘awlah) was found in him. Although many translations render ‘awlah as “iniquity,” “wrongdoing,” “unrighteousness,” or the like, the first definition of this word given by a standard Hebrew lexicon is “injustice,” and the major headings of meanings in the lexicon are “violent deeds of injustice,” “injustice of speech,” and “injustice, in general.”⁴⁹ I suggest that the use of this specific word for “injustice” rather than a general term for “iniquity” or “sin,” when viewed in the light of other biblical passages relating to the fall of Satan, implies that the guardian cherub cherished a sense of injustice with regard to God’s government, His dealings with him, and his exclusion from a place of equality with God.⁵⁰

Satan’s celestial slander against God’s justice during the rise of the great controversy is not an Adventist version of the story drawn from White’s extrabiblical inspiration; it is striking biblical truth!⁵¹ The lesser light once again has pointed us to the greater light!

Let us now move to some examples from the New Testament.

Matthew 5–7, Mark 3, and Luke 6: Geographical Location of the Sermon on the Mount

When one reads the Gospels that contain the same basic contents of the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt 5–7; Luke 6), it seems on the surface that they contradict one another geographically. Matthew 5:1 records that Jesus “went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.” Luke 6:12–17 indicates that Jesus “went out to the mountain to pray” (v. 12), and the next morning “He chose twelve whom He also named apostles” (v. 13), and then “He came down with them and stood in the plain” (v. 17 KJV). Where was Jesus’ inaugural sermon after appointing the twelve disciples—“on a mountain” or “in the plain”? The difference in geographical details have led some commentators to posit two different sermons, the “Sermon on the Mount” and the “Sermon on the Plain.” Mark 3:13–23 further complicates the geography by stating that Christ “went up on the mountain and . . . appointed twelve” (vv. 13–14), and later when “the multitude came together again [apparently near the Sea, cf. v. 7], so that they could not so much as eat bread” (i.e., not enough room for them to gather), He “called them to Himself and said to them in parables” (v. 23).

A closer look at the crucial Greek phrase translated by the KJV (the version commonly used by White and most people in the nineteenth century) as “in the plain” (Gk. epi topou pedinou), reveals that it is best translated as “a level place” (see most recent translations), and does not refer to an expansive plain. In light of this meaning of the Greek phrase, when I read White’s account of Jesus’ appointing of the Twelve and the Sermon on the Mount in The Desire of Ages while actually visiting the probable site of Jesus’ sermon, I was delighted to see how White seamlessly described the scenes, bringing together all the geographical details in the three Gospels in harmony with the meaning of the Greek original. White states that Jesus descended from the mountain where He had ordained the Twelve, came all the way down and to the seashore, found there was not room for the people who were assembling on the seashore, and so then He returned partway back up the mountain and found a level place suitable for the crowds to sit and listen to His sermon:

After the ordination of the apostles, Jesus went with them to the seaside. Here in the early morning the people had begun to assemble. Besides the usual crowds from the Galilean towns, there were people from Judea, and even from Jerusalem itself; from Perea, from Decapolis, from Idumea, away to the south of Judea; and from Tyre and Sidon, the Phoenician cities on the shore of the Mediterranean. “When they had heard what great things He did,” they “came to hear Him, and to be healed of their diseases: . . . there went virtue out of Him, and healed them all.” Mark 3:8; Luke 6:17–19.

The narrow beach did not afford even standing room within reach of His voice for all who desired to hear Him, and Jesus led the way back to the mountainside. Reaching a level space that offered a pleasant gathering place for the vast assembly, He seated Himself on the grass, and the disciples and the multitude followed His example.⁵²

In my various travels to Israel, I have often had the opportunity to visit the place traditionally (and most probably) identified as the Mount of Beatitudes. One finds that the Church of the Beatitudes is on a spacious level spot, partway up the mountain overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Just below the mountain, on the seashore where Jesus apparently first went to speak (according to Mark), is located an amphitheater-shaped terrain with perfect acoustics for several thousand to hear.⁵³ Another such natural amphitheater with good acoustics for an even bigger crowd is found on the gentle slopes on the level spot partway up the mountain. The topographical data White described perfectly blends the data revealed in the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when viewed in light of the original Greek language used by the Gospel writers.

Matthew 24:6, 13–14: The Meaning of the “End”

In His Sermon on the Mount of Olives in Matthew 24, Jesus states, “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come” (v. 14). In this verse, as well as in verses 6–8 and 13, the term “end” (Gk. telos) is commonly interpreted as primarily describing the end of the world. However, White interprets these passages as referring primarily to the end of the Jewish nation as a nation with the destruction of Jerusalem. Note her explanation of Matthew 24:6–8:

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.” Prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, men wrestled for the supremacy. Emperors were murdered. Those supposed to be standing next the throne were slain. There were wars and rumors of wars. “All these things must come to pass,” said Christ, “but the end [of the Jewish nation as a nation] is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.”⁵⁴

Recent research has confirmed that White’s interpretation is in fact the correct one.⁵⁵ The key to unlocking the meaning of this whole chapter (Matt 24) is in the terminological pattern already set forth in the historical context of verses 1–3. In verse 1 the disciples pointed out to Jesus the magnificent buildings of the Jerusalem temple, and in verse 2, Jesus responded, “Do you not see all these things [tauta]? Assuredly I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” In this verse the Greek word tauta, translated as “these things,” clearly refers to the Jerusalem temple in the context of its imminent destruction. Then in verse 3, as Jesus sat on the Mount of Olives overlooking the temple, the disciples came to Him privately, and asked, “Tell us, when will these things [tauta] be? And what will be the sign of your coming [parousia] and of the end [synteleia] of the age?” Note that the disciples asked two basic questions: (1) regarding the tauta (these things), which from the context of the previous verse refers clearly to the destruction of the Jerusalem temple; and (2) regarding the sign of His parousia (coming) and of the synteleia (end) of the world/age, which terms elsewhere in Matthew always refer to Christ’s second coming.

Throughout the rest of Matthew 24 Jesus remains consistent with this terminological pattern. The term tauta (these things) and the singular touto (this) are connected with telos (end, not synteleia) and consistently refer to events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, while the term ekeinos (those) is linked with parousia (coming, and synonyms) and synteleia (end) and refers to events connected with the second advent of Christ.

Thus, the structural flow of Jesus’ sermon in this chapter is as follows:

(A) vv. 4–20, the fall of Jerusalem (using the terms tauta [these], touto [this], and telos [end])

(B) vv. 21–31, the parousia (using the terms ekeinos [those] and parousia [coming])

(A’) vv. 32–35, the fall of Jerusalem (using the term tauta [these])

(B’) vv. 36–44, the parousia (using the term ekeinos [those] and parousia [coming])

Note that the Greek word parousia (coming) occurs in Matthew only in chapter 24 (vv. 3, 27, 37, 39) and always refers to Christ’s second coming in glory. Likewise, the term synteleia (end) in Matthew is the term used consistently to refer to the “end of the age” at Christ’s second advent (13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20). However, Matthew 24:6–8, 13–14 does not use the Greek word synteleia, but rather telos, which (in its primary application) refers to the end of the Jewish nation in AD 70 and not the second coming of Christ. This is shown by its occurrence in the context of Matthew 24:4–20, which deals (in its primary application) with the fall of Jerusalem (see the structural flow previously outlined). Throughout the rest of Matthew the term telos never refers to the end of the age at the second coming of Christ.⁵⁶

At the same time, because the fall of Jerusalem was presented by Jesus in this chapter as a type of the end of the world, in a secondary, typological sense, these verses can be applied in principle to the preaching of the gospel to the world before Christ’s second coming.⁵⁷

This is exactly what White presents in her book The Desire of Ages. She quotes Matthew 24:13–14 and shows how these verses refer primarily to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem but have typological application to the end of the world:

In the prophecy of Jerusalem’s destruction Christ said, “Because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” This prophecy will again be fulfilled. The abounding iniquity of that day finds its counterpart in this generation. So with the prediction in regard to the preaching of the gospel. Before the fall of Jerusalem, Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, declared that the gospel was preached to “every creature which is under heaven.” Colossians 1:23. So now, before the coming of the Son of man, the everlasting gospel is to be preached “to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.” Revelation 14:6, 14. God “hath appointed a day, in the which He will judge the world.” Acts 17:31. Christ tells us when that day shall be ushered in. He does not say that all the world will be converted, but that “this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”⁵⁸

White has accurately set forth the interpretation of “the end” in Matthew 24 in harmony with the meaning of crucial terminology in the original Greek language.

John 3:3, 7: “Again” or “From Above”?

In his night interview with Nicodemus, Jesus stated to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again [anōthen], he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3). The Greek adverb anōthen in the New Testament can mean either “again” or “above,” depending upon the context.⁵⁹ It is widely recognized that in light of the context of John 3, a play on words occurs in which both meanings are intended.⁶⁰ In the King James Version of White’s day, the translation of anōthen in the text of these verses is “again,” but many KJV Bibles included the marginal reading “from above.”

White captured this ambiguity of the Greek language in her commentary on these verses, sometimes translating as “born again,”⁶¹ other times “born from above.”⁶² Several references to these verses in her writings include both translations, one for verse 3 and another for verse 7, reflecting the play on words found in the biblical passage. See the following:

The great truth of the conversion of the heart by the Holy Spirit is presented in Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he can not see the kingdom of God. . . . That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh and whither it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit.” John 3:3–8, margin.⁶³

The Saviour said, “Except a man be born from above,” unless he shall receive a new heart, new desires, purposes, and motives, leading to a new life, “he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3, margin. The idea that it is necessary only to develop the good that exists in man by nature, is a fatal deception. “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” “Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.” 1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:7. Of Christ it is written, “In Him was life; and the life was the light of men”—the only “name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” John 1:4; Acts 4:12.⁶⁴

The great truth of the conversion of the heart by the Holy Spirit is presented in Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born from above, he can not see the kingdom of God. . . . That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”⁶⁵

In her various discussions of these verses, White more frequently used the KJV marginal reading “from above” than the translation “again” as found in the main text of the KJV. This comports with the fact that everywhere else where anōthen occurs in the Gospel of John, it clearly means “from above” (3:31; 19:11, 23), and commentators recognize this as the primary meaning intended in this context.⁶⁶ The standard New Testament Greek lexicon states that “Nicodemus thinks of physical rebirth [vs. 4], but the narrator shows Jesus with another dimension in mind.”⁶⁷ This is another example of where White’s commentary is sensitive to the play on words discernable in the original New Testament text in the Greek language.

John 12:32: “All Men” or “All”?

As Jesus came to the last week of His life before His crucifixion, He announced to the crowds around Him, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:31–32 KJV, emphasis added). Who will Jesus draw unto Himself? Many modern translations identify those drawn to Christ as only the inhabitants of this earth by translating pantas as “all men” (KJV) or “all people[s]” (ESV, NKJV). But in the Greek text the word pantas (all) occurs without any limiting noun which follows. While none would doubt that humans are included in the word pantas, is this terminology limited to humans? In the context of the previous verse, which describes cosmic proportions (using the Greek word kosmos for “world” and referring to the casting out of the prince/ruler of this world), this verse may be interpreted cosmically to include not only humans but angels in heaven and inhabitants of the unfallen worlds who rejoice as Satan is cast down.

It is precisely this larger scope of the verse which White offers in her citations of this biblical passage. First, in its application to humanity, she writes, “Christ came to manifest the love of God to the world, to draw the hearts of all men to Himself. He said, ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me’” (John 12:32).⁶⁸ But she elsewhere expands the scope of this verse to include the unfallen angels and the inhabitants of the unfallen worlds:

“Now is the judgment of this world,” Christ continued; “now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me. This He said, signifying what death He should die.” This is the crisis of the world. If I become the propitiation for the sins of men, the world will be lighted up. Satan’s hold upon the souls of men will be broken. The defaced image of God will be restored in humanity, and a family of believing saints will finally inherit the heavenly home. . . .

But the work of human redemption is not all that is accomplished by the cross. The love of God is manifested to the universe. The prince of this world is cast out. The accusations which Satan has brought against God are refuted. The reproach which he has cast upon heaven is forever removed. Angels as well as men are drawn to the Redeemer. “I, if I be lifted up from the earth,” He said, “will draw all unto Me.”⁶⁹

But the plan of redemption had a yet broader and deeper purpose than the salvation of man. It was not for this alone that Christ came to the earth; it was not merely that the inhabitants of this little world might regard the law of God as it should be regarded; but it was to vindicate the character of God before the universe. To this result of His great sacrifice—its influence upon the intelligences of other worlds, as well as upon man—the Saviour looked forward when just before His crucifixion He said: “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all unto Me.” John 12:31, 32. The act of Christ in dying for the salvation of man would not only make heaven accessible to men, but before all the universe it would justify God and His Son in their dealing with the rebellion of Satan. It would establish the perpetuity of the law of God and would reveal the nature and the results of sin.⁷⁰

Once again, White has grasped the fuller meaning of the biblical text which becomes evident to the interpreter in light of the original language of the New Testament.

Conclusion

I have not done an exhaustive search of White’s personal library (which I hope to undertake in the future), to determine how many of the biblical insights I have surveyed in this article are found in books to which she had access. In my limited search I have not found support in nineteenth-century scholars or Bible translations for most of the conclusions I have summarized here. But even if some ideas are found to have been drawn from these sources, this will not change my basic thesis. It would still need to be explained how White was guided to select these particular biblical insights and to leave aside the more commonly held conclusions of her time that do not stand the test of later and closer exegetical study.

This article presents only a sample of many similar “burning heart” experiences I have had as an exegete of the Bible in its original languages—instances where White has captured nuances of meaning in biblical passages that have become apparent in the original Hebrew and Greek but are not represented by modern translations, or, conversely, instances where White has provided details about the biblical narratives which I had always assumed were unique to her and not recorded in Scripture, but have later learned are supported by a close reading of the biblical text in the original languages.

A similar kind of testimony could be given regarding details of historical geography, where White’s picturesque descriptions of the localities in which biblical events took place—no doubt based upon her having seen these events in vision—are strikingly confirmed by the recent research of Old Testament geographers and archaeologists, when such information was (as far as I have been able to determine) not available in the historical geographies of White’s day.

I have shared some of the points presented in this paper with several of my colleagues in the Old Testament and New Testament departments at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, and have been gratified to learn that they also have had similar “burning heart” experiences with White’s writings when comparing her insights with their own research into Scripture in the original languages. They have compiled their own lists of instances where White’s detailed insights concerning biblical passages and events, which they had assumed were not addressed in the Scriptures, are in fact supported by a close reading of the biblical text in the original languages.

Such “burning heart” experiences powerfully testify to the inspiration of Ellen G. White and the value of her insights into Scripture in light of the original biblical languages.

* This article is a revised and significantly enlarged version of a chapter published as Richard M. Davidson, “Ellen White’s Insights into Scripture in Light of the Original Biblical Languages,” in The Gift of Prophecy in Scripture and History, ed. Alberto M. Timm and Dwain N. Esmond (Silver Spring, MD: Review and Herald, 2015), 155–170.