The Book of Isaiah

Chapter 1 V.9 Part 2

Isa 1:9 Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

One thing I’m seeing now, as opposed to when I first looked at this verse, is the fact that it says, “We should have been as…” I originally thought this said, “We would have been,” because that is what stood out in my mind at the time; but see, this is why people need to learn to read what it actually says as opposed to what they perceive. Yeah, I’m an example on that one of what not to do.

The reason that this caught my attention again now, is that saying that, “We would have been,” is different from saying, “We should have been.” The word “would” is indicative of something that would have happened whether we had control of the situation of not, whether they had sinned or not. Therefore, the use of “would” would have absolved them from responsibility.

In other words, the word “would” seems to indicate that the “we” here had no control of the situation either way, which is true. Only through God’s grace was the remnant spared, because just like with the flood, He had the option of scrapping the entire thing and starting over. He didn’t.

The word “should” here, indicates that there is the recognition that becoming like Sodom or Gomorrah would have been justified, or that they deserved it, in accordance to their sin.

Sodom = “burning”

1) a Canaanite city, usually paired with Gomorrah, located in the area of the Dead Sea and the Jordan river; both cities destroyed by God in judgment

Gomorrah = “submersion”

1) the twin-city in evil with Sodom, both destroyed in judgment by God with fire from heaven

a) of iniquity (fig.)

In looking at the definitions above of Sodom and Gomorrah, two things come to mind. First, according to the recognition of the fact that God exercised grace despite their sin and saved a remnant, Isaiah basically tells the people in this prophesy, that they deserve “burning” and “submersion.”

The other mind boggler for me lies in the fact that I was somewhat blown away when I found the definition of those two words. This is one of those things that make you go hmmm, because I’m the type that wanders outside the box to question stuff like this: Did the people of those territories know the meaning of the names of those cities? If so, how could they willingly live there?

In my mind, if I knew that a city I wanted to go to meant “burning” or “submersion;” I’d at least think twice and definitely pray before deciding to move there. I mean these names were prophetic. That’s pretty scary to live in a place with such a prophesy hanging over it according to the name.

People just don’t realize that the name of a thing can empower it or destroy it. Most laugh when I tell them that there is power in a name, so be careful what you allow people to name you. I see it repeatedly in scripture; the name dictated the life or the actions. People need to carefully consider what they bequeath upon their children by what they name them.