Quick
Return Home PageQuick
Return Home PageSODOM
The Bible teaching in reference to the destruction of Sodom and its ultimate
restoration is so important, that I have determined to devote a separate
article to its consideration. In this event we have the plainest
and perhaps the most striking illustration of God's invariable purpose
in all his dealings with mankind, viz.., the good of the individual. Though
it may be a most terrific and awful visitation of seemingly unmingled wrath,
as in the case of Sodom, yet we may be sure, as is also clearly shown in
this same case, that the purpose is one of benevolence, mercy and love,
and this purpose will plainly appear in God's due time." We might
be sure that this was so without any more special declaration than the
simple one that, "God is love." If God is love,-- if love is his
very nature and essence, then of course it necessarily follows that everything
he does is in some way a manifestation of his nature, love. "He cannot
deny himself." Let it be noticed in this connection that love
is not a mere attribute of God, like justice or mercy, but is his very
essence, "God as Love." We sometimes hear people say, "Yes, God
is Love, but God is just also;" they seem to think that God's justice is
something to offset or oppose his love. They do not notice that when they
say God is just, they simply declare that justice is one of God's attributes;
but when the Bible says God is Love, it is plainly indicated that love
is more than an attribute, it is his nature. You will not find
any Scripture that says God is justice, or God is mercy, or God is holiness.
God is just, merciful and holy; these are attributes or characteristics
of God, but neither of these denote his absolute nature. On the other
hand we do read that God is love; it does not say simply that God is loving
or lovable, but God is Love; He is Love itself; love is the substance of
his being, and all his attributes are but the outward manifestation of
some aspect of his nature; love; so that whether he rains fire and brimstone
upon Sodom, or sends his Son to be the Saviour of the world, both acts
are equally the manifestation of his love. Does that seem like
putting it too strong? How can it be otherwise? If God is love, if love
is himself, can he do anything contrary to himself? Can he do anything
in the least degree out of harmony with his nature? Must not all his acts
be in perfect union with this foundation essence of his being? And must
not each act be equally in harmony with love? Can it be that one act is
in more perfect harmony with his nature, than some other act? Would not
such a supposition make God's ways unequal? (Ezek. XVIII. 25). O
that we might know God so thoroughly, that we should trust Him perfectly,
and so be able to look up to him fearless and unshrinking, like the "young
man," Joshua, (Ex. XXXIII. 11), whether he manifests himself to us in the
lightning, and thunder and quaking of Sinai, or in the melting tenderness
and compassion of Calvary! Jesus is the "brightness of the Father's
glory and the express image of his substance" (Heb. I. 3, N. V.).
What is the Father's glory? His Goodness. (Ex. XXXIII. 18, 19). Is
not Jesus the most perfect revelation of God's goodness that was ever "freely"
given to man? He was the only human being who was "holy, harmless,
undefiled;" and he "went about doing good, for God [the author and
source of all good] was with him." And what is God's substance?
I have already answered this question. Love is his substance, and
surely Christ is a perfect revelation of the Father's love. Everything
that is gentle and attractive, and loveable in Christ, is so simply because
he is the reflection of the same attributes in God. "God so loved the world
that He gave his only begotten Son." "God was in Christ reconciling the
world unto himself;" it was all of God, and Jesus comes to reveal Him unto
us. (In us through union, "the mystery revealed, Christ in you, the hope
of Glory," Col. I.27). In Christ we "perceive the love of God;" in
him was manifested God's Love," (1 John III. 16; IV. 9) and thus is he
the "brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of his substance."
There are very few things in existence that we know what they really are;
we know some things about them but we do not know their essence; for instance
we know many things about electricity, but we know not what it really is
in itself. But, wonderful to relate, we know what the infinite God
really is! Love, Love, Love,-- God is Love! We know not Love, in
all its breadth, and length, and depth, and height, for it "passeth knowledge"
(Eph. III. 18, 19), but there is no one of all the human race, upon whom
has dawned intelligence, who does not know something of the emotion of
love; this knowledge is as common to the race almost as breathing, hence
all have within themselves the faculty whereby to know God whensoever he
may reveal himself to them. But more is revealed of God's nature
than the simple declaration that He is love; love is analyzed and defined
for us, so that we may know what it is, i.e. what God is. Listen--
"Love suffereth long and is kind: love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not its
own, is not provoked, [the word "easily" should be omitted; see N.V.] thinketh
no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth; covereth
all things [ N.V., margin], believeth [ or rather, hath faith] in all things,
hopeth all things, endureth all things. Love never faileth." Here
is a description of Love; but whoever had such a love as this? No
one but he who is love God, hence this is a description of God, giving
us all the details of his character, every particular of the divine nature,
that we may come at last to know him fully, even as we have been known
fully. (Verse 12, N.V.,margin). Read over the description again
and see if it can apply to any but God, and He who is his express image.
Who but he "suffereth" long and is kind? Who but he "covereth all
things, has faith in all things, endureth all things?" And of whom
can it be said, but of Him, that He "never faileth?" "O Lord, our
Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! His name alone
is excellent; his glory is above the earth and heaven." (Psa. VIII.
1; CXLVIII. 13).
Perhaps some of my readers are by this time saying, "What does all this
long introduction have to do with Sodom?" If you cannot answer
that question I am afraid you will not see the truth about Sodom.
The one great purpose of all my writing and preaching is to make God known
to those I have access to. To know God is life; not to know him is
death [every child of God is born into the DEATH state. Those who
acknowledge Christ Jesus, are raise in Him unto Resurrected Life through
the Spirit. Those who do not respond to His call are place before the Judgement
seat of Christ; to be judged through the purging fire of LOVE unto salvation.
They too shall have the opportunity, now with knowledge and love, to bow
their knee and profess Christ Jesus as Lord]; to know God is everything;
not to know him is the sum of all evil [or missing His mark]. All
the difference there is between a heaven and chaos [all too many people
call this "hell" but this condition exist in the here and now] is
that in the heavenly condition we shall know him fully; in the chaotic
state they know him not. All the difference there is between satan's
kingdom and Christ's is that in the former "darkness covers the earth and
gross darkness the people," "they proceed from evil to evil, and they know
not me, saith the Lord" (Jer. IX. 3.); in the latter "The Lord shall arise
upon them, and his glory shall be seen upon them, and the nations shall
come to his light and kings to the brightness of his rising" (Isa. LX.
2, 3.), and "the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth as the waters
cover the sea," and "ALL SHALL KNOW HIM from the least to the greatest."
Therefore my one endeavor and ambition is that in whatsoever measure God
has revealed himself to me, in that same measure to reveal Him to my brother
and my sister, wherever I can gain a listening ear or a reverent and thoughtful
mind. The manner of God's dealings with man, is a revelation of God to
man; to know why God does what he does, in other words to "see the end
(purpose) of the Lord" (Jas. V. 11) is to know, and to see God. The reason
why we misjudge God, and are so ignorant of him is because we only see
the means (and we see that very imperfectly) and we mistake it for
the end. He only that knoweth God's purpose, knoweth God; hence I
would study all history, sacred and profane, written or enacted before
my eyes, with the one idea of discovering the principles upon which God
acts, and the purpose of his actions. Peter tells us that the case
of Sodom is an exemplary one. His method of dealing with that wicked
city is a pattern of his way with all ungodly sinners (2 Pet. II. 6); hence
the study of this case is of all importance. We should study it with
no petty prejudice, or narrow, cut-and-dried ideas; but with the broad
purpose of learning therefrom, as I have already said, the principles of
God's method, and his ultimate purpose: and thereby we shall learn more
of God, and of his relationship to man under all circumstances. Let
us endeavor to study the subject in this spirit.
I need not dwell upon the history of the destruction of Sodom, all are
familiar with it, or may very easily make themselves so. We know
that the city was so wicked that ten righteous persons could not be found
within its walls and God destroyed them all by "a horrible tempest" (Psa.
XI. 6.) of "fire and brimstone." "Terrible" you exclaim, "what extraordinary
sinners they must have been to have deserved such a fearful visitation
as this!" Why, no, "they were not sinners above all men" (Lu. XIII.
4); in fact they were very ordinary sinners, not near as bad as many cities
that are referred to in the Bible. Their sins were just the ordinary
transgressions of all populous and wealthy cities, ancient and modern.
What were they? Here they are. "Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom;
pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her, neither
did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy; and they were haughty,
and committed abomination." (Ezek. XVI. 49, 50). These are not
extraordinary, unusual sins. What city ever existed, or does now
exist, that could not be truthfully charged with every one of the sins
enumerated above? Many a city has been far worse than this. The
above language would not begin to describe the "iniquity" of Paris, London
or New York, let alone San Francisco. But more surprising still,
Sodom did not begin to be so bad as the so called "holy city of David,"
proud and magnificent Jerusalem. The sin of Sodom was "a very little thing"
in comparison with the sin of Jerusalem. (Ezek. XVI. 47). Think of
it a moment. We know that the sin of Sodom was "very grievous." (Gen.
XVIII. 20). What then must have been the sin of highly favored Jerusalem,
if in comparison therewith the sin of Sodom was "a very little thing?"
Suppose we take the orthodox view of this case and see how well it will
stand investigation. The case of Sodom is clear cut and unequivocal. We
know that the Sodomites were exceedingly wicked sinners (Gen. XIII. 13).
We know that when they were destroyed there were no righteous persons among
them, "no, not one" (Rom. III.10), for if there had been the Lord
would have saved him with Lot, and thus the Sodomites were a fitting type
of the race. We know that they perished in their sins, that none
of them escaped, all were destroyed, (Lu. XVII. 29). Hence it is
positive that these wicked sinners have all gone to an endless hell, if
the orthodox view is correct. Is such a view in harmony with the Bible
teaching in regard to Sodom? As we have already noticed, the sin
of Sodom was comparatively "a very little thing." If the doom
of Sodom for this comparatively "very little" sin is endless torment what
ought to be the doom of Jerusalem? What ought to 'be the doom of
Capernaum, and of the cities that reject "the gospel? For they also
are worse than Sodom. (Matt. X. 14; XI. 23, 24). Sodom did not sin
against light; they knew nothing of the true God or of Jesus Christ the
Saviour. I know that Lot was among them, a righteous man, but
we have every reason to believe that he was more interested in his worldly
prosperity than in the moral welfare of those around him. At any
rate rejection of the truth is not mentioned in the enumeration of the
sins of Sodom. Would their guilt have been any greater, if they had committed
that sin? Certainly it would, for it is on that very account that
other cities are spoken of as worse than Sodom. This was the very
reason why Jerusalem was worse; because it sinned against great light;
this was the very reason why Capernaum was worse; and this was the very
reason given by Jesus Christ himself why it should be "more tolerable for
Sodom in the day of judgment" than for those cities that rejected the truth.
How does the idea of its being "more tolerable" for one than for another
in the future state of punishment, fitting with the idea of endless torment
for all? Not at all; it is arrant nonsense to talk about more or less tolerable
endless torment, and any one ought to be ashamed to believe or advocate
any such absurdity. But graver still is the question,-- how can
we vindicate the justice of God in his dealing with Sodom if the orthodox
view is correct? Jesus plainly tells us that if Sodom had the light and
advantages that other cities had, it would have repented; that light was
withheld, through no fault of theirs, and they perished in their sins and
are lost eternally. Why did they not have that light? Why didn't Sodom
have as good a chance for salvation as any other class of human beings?
That they did not, Christ plainly declares, and now their doom is sealed
and they are hopelessly lost. Now if they had received light, they
would have had as good an opportunity as others and would have been
saved. You cannot reconcile this case with justice and equity
on the ground of the prevailing theology. I will show presently how
fully it harmonizes with the grand truth of probation after death, but
it is certainly out of joint in every particular with the teaching of the
nominal church.
But now how easy to understand and how reasonable this declaration in regard
to Sodom becomes in the light of the views presented in the preceding article.
The judgment day is the period of man's probation. At that time every
one shall receive according to his deserts "few stripes or many," (Lu.
XII. 47, 48) and, passing through trial and discipline, even to the awful
"winnowing" of the "stone of stumbling and rock of offence," shall be perfected
through suffering, and, at last, created in the image of God. At
that time it shall be more tolerable for those like Sodom, who in ignorance
and mere animalism have only committed the crimes common to all mankind,
than for those who, blessed with great light and large opportunities, have
added to the ordinary sins of man the willful and persistent rejection of
that light, and the ungrateful abuse of those favorable opportunities;
highly favored Jerusalem, exalted Capernaum, and the cities blessed by
the preaching of the apostles, shall be cast down into a deeper hell, than
Sodom and Gomorrah, or Tyre and Sidon, though these latter cities were
exceedingly wicked in their pride and cruelty, and intensely filthy with
heathen corruptions and nameless abominations. It would be well if
modern Jerusalem and Capernaums, in this most civilized, refined and intellectual
of eras should take warning, remembering that, "Unto whomsoever
much is given, of him shall be much required."
The foregoing rational and scriptural explanation of the case of Sodom,
clears up all the difficulties of the orthodox view. If the Sodomites are
to have their trial and probation in some future time, then any inequality
or partiality that may have existed or appeared in this life can be perfectly
adjusted there, so that no ultimate injustice will be done. Had we
no more scripture upon the subject than I have already referred to in this
and the preceding article, the above would be in perfect harmony with that
scripture. A legitimate conclusion can be drawn from it, and
a reasonable explanation of all the circumstances of the case; explaining
them in harmony with the Bible, the revealed character of God, our highest
conceptions of justice and righteousness, arid the convictions of common
sense and reason. But now in addition to all this evidence we
are directly told that the Sodomites are to come up from their graves and
be blessed with more wicked Samaria, and far more wicked Jerusalem. Who
can doubt then that such is the glorious truth. All must admit that
the view of the final restoration of the race in, the ages to come,
to the image of God, is glorious if true; and with such positive and direct
evidence, at least in regard to Sodom, as the above, how can we doubt its
truth! But is the evidence positive and direct? Let us see. Turn
to the 16th chapter of Ezekiel's prophecy and read it all through. You
will notice that the first part of the chapter is highly figurative. The
origin of Jerusalem is represented as that of a poor neglected female infant
cast out as a low-born waif, friendless and ready to perish. God
represents himself as taking pity on the babe, caring for it, and rearing
it for himself. The figure moves on, growing more and more intense and
striking. The child grows up to a beautiful womanhood, and the Lord says,
"I spread my skirt over thee (compare Ruth III. 9), and covered thy nakedness;
yea I swear unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the
Lord God, and thou becamest mine." Thus Jerusalem is represented as being
married unto God. Then the figure goes on to represent the magnificence
and beauty of the bride; "Thy renown went forth among the heathen for thy
beauty; for it was perfect through my comeliness, which I had put upon
thee, saith the Lord God." But self-trust, pride and unfaithfulness
follows. In language most intensely significant the surpassing wickedness
of Jerusalem is represented under the abhorrent figure of an unfaithful,
corrupted wife, who not only plays the harlot herself, but teaches her
children (verse 20, &c.) to commit like abominations; "Woe, woe, unto
thee! saith the Lord God;" (verse 23) a terrible heap of corruption and
crime is piled up against this shameless harlot, and then the Lord declares
her punishment. "Wherefore, O harlot, hear the word of the Lord!"
because of thy filthiness and abominations I will bring shame upon thee
before thy lovers," and I will judge thee as women that break wedlock,"
and destruction, and ruin, and shame, and war shall come upon thee, and
thou shall be robbed of thy wealth of thy fair jewels and the beautiful
raiment, and thou shalt be stripped and stoned, and thrust through with
the sword, and burned with fire; and I will pour out my fury and anger
upon thee. Then the Lord goes on to declare that Jerusalem had followed
the tendencies of her heathen origin, and, like the Amorite and the Hittite,
and other Canaanitish nations, had wrought all manner of "abominations"
(Deut. XVIII. 9). Samaria, the capital of the wicked kingdom of Israel,
and Sodom, the principal city of the plain, are her elder and younger,
or rather her greater and lesser (see margin) sisters. It is not
the age of these cities that is referred to in the terms rendered "elder"
and "younger," but their comparative guilt. Sodom, Samaria
and Jerusalem are represented as three sisters of one common, corrupt parentage.
Sodom is called the "lesser" because the least guilty of the three, having
had the least light and fewest privileges. Samaria is next in guilt, the
greater or elder sister of Jerusalem, being next in favorable advantages;
while Jerusalem is far worse than any of the others, having had the greatest
blessings and opportunities. Therefore God says to Jerusalem, "Thine elder
sister is Samaria, and thy lesser sister is Sodom. Yet hast thou not walked
after their ways, nor done after their abominations; but as if that
were a very little thing, thou wast corrupted more than they in all thy
ways. As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she
nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Neither hath
Samaria committed half of thy sins, but thou hast multiplied thine abominations
more than they; and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations
which thou hast done. Thou also which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine
own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they;
they are more righteous than thou; yea, be thou confounded also,
and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters." This is a
most terrible charge. So great and overshadowing was the sin
of Jerusalem that the sins of these other wicked cities sink into utter
insignificance in comparison; the immensely greater iniquity of Jerusalem
even seems to justify (excuse altogether) the comparatively trifling transgressions
of Sodom and Samaria. When we think, again, of the great enormity in itself
of the iniquity of these two exceedingly wicked cities, and yet are
told that their sin was "as a very little thing," and even "justifiable"
in comparison to the far more enormous sin of Jerusalem, we can perhaps
form some faint idea of the tremendous guilt and deep corruption of this
latter city. Now then if there is mercy and blessing in store
for Jerusalem, "the chief of sinners," surely we need not be surprised
or incredulous when we are told of future mercy and blessing for the less
guilty cities of Samaria and Sodom. But every reader of the prophets
knows that they abound with glowing predictions of coming good for Jerusalem.
See for example, the 40th and 60th chapters of Isaiah; the 30th and 3lst
of Jeremiah; the 20th and 36th of Ezekiel; the 2nd of Hosea, and many others.
In this same chapter moreover (the l6th of Ezekiel) although it sets forth
in so striking a manner the colossal iniquity of this devoted city, yet
it closes with abundant promises to it of future redemption and glory.
Most Bible students accept these promises of future good to Jerusalem,
and expect to see them fulfilled. Why then endeavor to explain
away and nullify similar promises in the same chapter to less sinful Sodom?
I will answer the question. Because future blessings for Sodom necessarily
imply probation after death, while such blessings for Jerusalem do
not necessarily imply that doctrine. The promises of future good to Jerusalem
may be fulfilled to those of Abraham's seed who are living at that future
time. But similar declarations concerning the Sodomites cannot be
so fulfilled, for the simple reason that there are no descendants of that
people, they were utterly exterminated by the rain of wrath that God sent
upon them; hence if there are future blessings for them they must be raised
from the grave and receive those blessings after death, which implies as
I have already said, probation after death; but this great truth so grand
and glorious, and the only view that will harmonize the whole Bible, is
the very thing that the church in her blindness and ignorance will not
accept; therefore, though they may accept happy predictions concerning
Jerusalem and Israel, with manifest inconsistency they utterly reject
these intimations of future good for Sodom. But, thank God!
Their rejection cannot change the truth; this important and glorious scripture
remains, teaching us plainly that there is hope even for the impenitent
dead.
Let us turn again to the l6th of Ezekiel. We have examined to the
53rd verse; we have found that the greater part of the chapter up to this
point is highly figurative, but as we get along into the middle part it
becomes less and less figurative, until in the latter part of the chapter
the figure is almost entirely dropped and the statements are in plain and
direct terms. The 53rd and the two following verses read, correctly rendered
(see New Version), "I will turn again their captivity, the captivity of
Sodom and her daughters, and the captivity of Samaria and her daughters,
and the captivity of thy captives in the midst of them; that thou mayest
bear thine own shame, and mayest be ashamed because of all that thou hast
done, in that thou art a comfort unto them; and thy sisters, Sodom and
her daughters, shall return to their former estate, and Samaria and her
daughters shall return to their former estate, and thou and thy daughters
shall return to your former estate."
Now what does this most remarkable prophecy mean? What does "turn
their captivity" mean? This is explained in verse 55,-- "restore
them to their former estate." Now in order to avoid as much as possible
complication and confusion, we will consider the subject solely with reference
to Sodom, ignoring for the present the other two cities named; the prophecy
then is simplified to this, Sodom shall be restored to her former estate.
What does this mean? What is the legitimate, positive conclusion
from this wonderful prophecy? The Sodomites, at some future time,
will come forth from the grave to their former state and condition; if
they are restored at all it must be from the grave, since there are no
living descendants of the Sodomites, all were destroyed [we urge the reader
to reference I Peter III. 19, IV. 6. "It was in the SPIRIT that He went
and preached to the imprisoned souls of those who had been disobedient
in the days of Noah." "That is why the dead also had the gospel preached
to them"]. The above conclusion then is necessary; however, I
will notice objections presently. Now we will ask, what is this restoration
for? Why are the Sodomites to be thus restored? The remaining
part of the chapter plainly indicates that they are to be restored to be
blessed; there can be no doubt but that a promise of future good to
Jerusalem is contained in the last part of this chapter; they are to be
"ashamed" of their wrong doing, and God will "remember his covenant with
them," and shall "establish an everlasting covenant with them," so that
they shall know the Lord, and he will be "PACIFIED toward them for all
that they have done." When this takes place Jerusalem shall "receive
her sisters," Samaria and Sodom, "for daughters," which certainly means
that these two latter cities are to share in those future blessings.
There are two other passages concerning Sodom in the New Testament
that I must briefly notice in passing. 2 Pet. II.6, and Jude 7. I
will only say now that both these passages agree in making the case of
Sodom an "example" of God's punishments of the ungodly; (see the margin
of the New Version on the latter passage). The word rendered "eternal,"
as almost all Bible students now admit, does not mean endless, but age-lasting;
and several "ages" have already passed since Sodom was destroyed. But
I will not notice this point further now; probably in the next paper I
shall discuss the meaning of this word in an article by itself; at any
rate we are sure that the Sodomites are not eternally doomed, for they
are to be "restored to their former estate," to be blessed. The truth
of a probation after death being established in regard to Sodom it follows
in the case of all the dead who have not had their probation in this
life. This future restoration is not a special provision for the
benefit of Sodom alone, but a future development in the plan of God for
the blessing of all mankind. "It is appointed unto men once to die, and
after this probation." We find the same language used here in
regard to Sodom-- "bring again their captivity"-- which is further explained
to mean, "restored to their former estate"-- we find this same language
used of other nations; for instance Moab, Ammon and Elam (Jer. XLVIII.
47; XLIX. 36, 39). Without the case of Sodom we should not be
able to understand the above references to these latter cities; but with
this case in mind it is fair to conclude that, since similar language is
used of these nations as of Sodom, they, like Sodom, are to be restored
in "the latter days" to be blessed.
Still further in regard to Moab, see Zeph. II. 8-11, noticing especially
the last half of verse 11. The same conclusion follows also in regard
to Edom; see Jer. 49: 17, 18, where the destruction of Edom is compared
to the destruction of Sodom; and yet we know that sometime in the
future "when the kingdom is the Lord's," there are blessings for Edom,
as there are for Sodom; see Ob. 21. And finally David makes
this restoration of the nations universal when he says, "ALL nations whom
thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord, and shall glorify
thy name; for thou art great and doest wondrous things; thou art God alone."
(Psa. 86: 9, 10).
Here then is a most positive testimony in favor of probation after
death. According to this testimony death does not fix our eternal destiny.
It seems as though this case were arranged in such a way that no one could
honestly doubt but that it teaches post-humous probation. Sodom,
an exceedingly wicked city is utterly destroyed; not a soul left, so that
there cannot be any of their descendants on the earth; if it were not for
this; if it were possible to suppose that a few of the Sodomites escaped
so that their posterity were still living on the earth, then this declaration
of the ultimate restoration of Sodom would be accepted at once, and it
would be explained to apply to the living descendants of the ancient people.
I will give an illustration presently of the strenuous efforts made
to hunt up some sort of a Sodomitish seed still living on the earth so
that this prophecy may be fulfilled to them without the necessity of accepting
a probation after death. But we know if Sodom is restored at all
it must be from the grave, hence the doctrine of probation after death
follows. The Sodomites belong to that class who, "having done evil"
in this life will "come forth from "the grave unto the resurrection of
judgment, trial or probation," as I have noticed in the preceding article.
This case is also a perfect illustration of Psa. 90: 3, "He turneth man
to destruction, and saith return ye children of men." Sodom is overwhelmed
with a most awful destruction, but to them shall yet go forth the command,
"Return ye children of men." This is a part of Christ's work. "He has
the keys of death and of hades," and he shall "proclaim liberty to the
captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound," and he
shall "say to the prisoners, go forth; to them that are in darkness, shew
yourselves," though the prisoners are gathered together in the pit and
shut up in the prison many days yet "shall they be visited." (Isa. XXIV.
22). They are finally delivered. "ALL that are in the grave
shall hear his voice and come forth. Those who have entered into resurrection
life, prior to putting down their clay tabernacle, are not subject to judgment
unto probation; however, they that did not receive light or have
missed the mark (sinned), they will find "salvation" through judgment of
probation-- the essence of LOVE. This same case also illustrates
Psa. 83: 16-18. In fact the above view in regard to Sodom is in harmony
with all scripture and is the only view that will harmonize all scripture,
as I have abundantly shown in this and the preceding article.
Great efforts have been made by various classes of Christians to
break the force of this argument in favor of probation after death.
This is a very troublesome passage for those who oppose this doctrine to
handle, it is so plain and straightforward that they have much ado to
clear it out of the way; there it stands, in plain terms, as stubborn as
the bed rock of God's truth upon which it rests. Sodom shall return
to her former estate to be blessed; if she does thus return, it must
be from the dead, and the doctrine of post-humous probation is immovably
established.
I will conclude with noticing two more thoughts. A future probation for
Sodom such as is taught in this prophecy would not be a second probation,
or another chance, as some say, but the only probation, and the only chance
that Sodom ever had. Probation is the period of education, training,
enlightenment, development, and perfecting through suffering; we cannot
have such probation unless we have the true light of God; Sodom was destitute
of all such light, hence has had no probation, and will have none until
she is "restored to her former estate."
I would add a word on one other point. The prophecy concerning Sodom, bears
as hard against the Non-resurrection view, and the Annihilation idea as
against the doctrine of endless torment. If Sodom is to have a future
life, as this prophecy plainly indicates, then the idea that the wicked
have no resurrection must be false. If Sodom is to have a future life to
be blessed, then the advent idea that the wicked are to be raised from
the dead simply to be annihilated is also disapproved. Thus this
prophecy of Sodom stands as a bulwark against error and for the protection
of the truth. It is a most remarkable prophecy, utterly out of joint
with all the denominational creeds, and all other beliefs that would
narrow down the plan of God for man's only redemption to the present life
and the present age. But it is in full harmony with the views of
those who see that the present life for the vast majority of the race is
not their period of probation or trial for eternal life, but that such
probation will come "after death." And that the present age, and
all the ages past, are but the preparatory stages to the great work in
"the ages to come," even the "ages of ages," of creating man, the entire
race, in the image and likeness of God. This latter view is in harmony
with all scripture, and is thus marked as the truth of God. It is
a tremendous truth because it determines the truth in regard to the destiny
of all mankind. Sodom and all the wicked dead that have not heretofore
had their trial, will "come forth" in the "ages to come," to have their
probation for eternal life and immortality.
Back
to Top of Page 
Exit
to Introduction Menu Back
to Library List
Back to A.P. Adams Contents List