A SCRIPTURAL EXAMPLE OF ETERNAL FIRE
ARE SODOM AND GOMORRAH LOST FOREVER?
Revised July 2022
ARE SODOM AND GOMORRAH LOST FOREVER?
Revised July 2022
"Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Jude 7
On this site I have attempted to demonstrate that the doctrine of eternal torment is not a scriptural teaching, but is based solely on our own traditions and preconceived notions which we inject into the Biblical text. The popular ideas about hell are completely absent from the very scriptures that are too often quoted to prove its reality. Christians need to examine their hearts and ask themselves if they're interested in what the Bible really teaches, or if they're more interested in defending long-held and cherished beliefs even when such beliefs have no basis in biblical fact.
The only sure guide for determining what a passage of scripture means is to let the Bible define its own terms and language. Many Christians insist that they do just that, but their doctrines betray them. For example, so many Christians insist that the 'Gehenna Fire' (often translated 'hell fire') of the New Testament is an eternal place of conscious torment for human souls, when scripturally the only thing that is ever said to burn there are dead corpses? (For more information see our work A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment)
The scripture quoted at the top of this page concerning the ultimate fate of the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah is just one more example of where many Christians believe that they have found a proof-text for the doctrine of eternal torment. But again, when we let scripture define its own language and carefully consider the evidence, this passage actually becomes fatal to that concept.
How so? In this brief study we will take a closer look at what the Bible has to say about the ultimate fate of Sodom an Gomorrah. Those cities and their inhabitants were destroyed by God for their sin and rebellion, and we must never lose site of that fact. God has, and will punish sin to which the destruction of these cities bears sobering testimony. But does the story end there; In an eternal hell of torment and suffering? The price of sin is death, judgment, and punishment. But ultimately the Bible’s story of mankind is one of restoration and redemption, and the story of Sodom is no exception.
We read in Jude verse 7 that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth as an EXAMPLE of 'eternal fire'. If this verse is supposed to offer proof of the existence of an eternally burning hell of torment, then this is very strange. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament story about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 19). The wickedness of those cities was so great that God destroyed them by raining down fire and brimstone from heaven. But that's where the story ends concerning God's wrath against them. You cannot find anywhere in your Bible where it says that these wicked people descended into hell after their cities were destroyed, let alone that they have been tormented in such a place ever since.
Consider what Jude 7 actually says. Sodom and Gomorrah are supposed to be an EXAMPLE of God's vengeance by 'eternal fire'. Even more than that, they are SET FORTH as an example of such a fire. Read it again. The destruction of these cities is the very example of that 'eternal fire'. No one has ever set forth one single soul burning in hell as an example of anything. In the destruction of these cities we see a real tangible example of what an 'eternal fire' is.
If the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is supposed to be 'proof' of an eternal hell, then what evidence, scriptural or otherwise, are you going to produce to prove it? You have no scriptural proof, and certainly not one shred of physical evidence. What happened to these cities is an example of what an 'eternal fire' is and does. Immortal souls burning in hell are never set forth as an example of anything.
The meaning of this passage ought to be crystal clear if not for the mental blinders which obscure the minds of so many professing Christians. The wrath of God against these cities utterly destroyed them, wiped them off the face of the earth, and they were never rebuilt. The fact of their destruction and perpetual desolation to this day is the true example of what God's eternal fire is and does. This is a provable, visible, and tangible fact which can be set forth as an example of God's wrath against sin and unrighteousness. Why do so many feel the need to cloud such a clear example by trying to use this passage as proof for an unscriptural myth?
The total and perpetual destruction of these cites can be set forth as a clear example of God's wrath. On the other hand, no one has ever presented one soul burning in hell as an example of anything.
But the scriptural story about the inhabitants of those wicked cities does not end with their destruction . I know that most Christians want to confine the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to hell for all eternity. Is that really what the Bible teaches? I can already anticipate the response; 'The fire is eternal' many will say. Are you certain that the 'eternal fire' of Jude 7 is the fire of an eternally burning hell?
You might be shocked to learn that the Bible tells a very different story...
The only sure guide for determining what a passage of scripture means is to let the Bible define its own terms and language. Many Christians insist that they do just that, but their doctrines betray them. For example, so many Christians insist that the 'Gehenna Fire' (often translated 'hell fire') of the New Testament is an eternal place of conscious torment for human souls, when scripturally the only thing that is ever said to burn there are dead corpses? (For more information see our work A Challenge to the Doctrine of Eternal Torment)
The scripture quoted at the top of this page concerning the ultimate fate of the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah is just one more example of where many Christians believe that they have found a proof-text for the doctrine of eternal torment. But again, when we let scripture define its own language and carefully consider the evidence, this passage actually becomes fatal to that concept.
How so? In this brief study we will take a closer look at what the Bible has to say about the ultimate fate of Sodom an Gomorrah. Those cities and their inhabitants were destroyed by God for their sin and rebellion, and we must never lose site of that fact. God has, and will punish sin to which the destruction of these cities bears sobering testimony. But does the story end there; In an eternal hell of torment and suffering? The price of sin is death, judgment, and punishment. But ultimately the Bible’s story of mankind is one of restoration and redemption, and the story of Sodom is no exception.
We read in Jude verse 7 that the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are set forth as an EXAMPLE of 'eternal fire'. If this verse is supposed to offer proof of the existence of an eternally burning hell of torment, then this is very strange. Most people are familiar with the Old Testament story about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 19). The wickedness of those cities was so great that God destroyed them by raining down fire and brimstone from heaven. But that's where the story ends concerning God's wrath against them. You cannot find anywhere in your Bible where it says that these wicked people descended into hell after their cities were destroyed, let alone that they have been tormented in such a place ever since.
Consider what Jude 7 actually says. Sodom and Gomorrah are supposed to be an EXAMPLE of God's vengeance by 'eternal fire'. Even more than that, they are SET FORTH as an example of such a fire. Read it again. The destruction of these cities is the very example of that 'eternal fire'. No one has ever set forth one single soul burning in hell as an example of anything. In the destruction of these cities we see a real tangible example of what an 'eternal fire' is.
If the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is supposed to be 'proof' of an eternal hell, then what evidence, scriptural or otherwise, are you going to produce to prove it? You have no scriptural proof, and certainly not one shred of physical evidence. What happened to these cities is an example of what an 'eternal fire' is and does. Immortal souls burning in hell are never set forth as an example of anything.
The meaning of this passage ought to be crystal clear if not for the mental blinders which obscure the minds of so many professing Christians. The wrath of God against these cities utterly destroyed them, wiped them off the face of the earth, and they were never rebuilt. The fact of their destruction and perpetual desolation to this day is the true example of what God's eternal fire is and does. This is a provable, visible, and tangible fact which can be set forth as an example of God's wrath against sin and unrighteousness. Why do so many feel the need to cloud such a clear example by trying to use this passage as proof for an unscriptural myth?
The total and perpetual destruction of these cites can be set forth as a clear example of God's wrath. On the other hand, no one has ever presented one soul burning in hell as an example of anything.
But the scriptural story about the inhabitants of those wicked cities does not end with their destruction . I know that most Christians want to confine the people of Sodom and Gomorrah to hell for all eternity. Is that really what the Bible teaches? I can already anticipate the response; 'The fire is eternal' many will say. Are you certain that the 'eternal fire' of Jude 7 is the fire of an eternally burning hell?
You might be shocked to learn that the Bible tells a very different story...
In the Day of Judgment
"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city." Matthew 10:14-15
In Jude 7, the Bible speaks of the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, and how the destruction of those cities is set forth as an example of God's wrath against sin and unrighteousness. What the Bible does not say is that the inhabitants of those cities are being punished by the flames of hell for all eternity. The passage simply does not say that, nor will you find that concept anywhere in scripture.
But the Bible has much more to say about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; One such example from the Book of Matthew is shown above. We read: 'It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city' (those cities in Judea which had rejected the preaching of Jesus and his disciples).
This is the type of passage that should challenge our thinking. If we say, as many Christians believe, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are already burning in an 'eternal fire' (hell), then what are we to make of the language of Matthew 10? There is clearly a future 'day of judgment' coming for those wicked inhabitants, but in what way is any judgment meaningful if they have already been confined to eternal flames? Do the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah get temporarily released from the flames, judged, and confined to the eternal fire once more? In what way can confinement in eternal fire be more tolerable for some than for others? These kinds of questions should provide a clue that there is more going on here.
The fact is, most Christians actually really do believe in two different hells; A temporary one prior to the day of judgment, and a final one following. This distinction rarely appears in casual conversation about hell, but many believe that it is demanded by the questions we just raised. But as I have stated, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by 'eternal fire' is certainly no proof of any fiery place of torment prior to the last judgment, and there is in fact NO scripture anywhere that portends any such place.
What do Christians make of the language of Mathew 10, that it shall be 'More tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah' than for others?
Typical responses are similar to those found in reference works such as the Dake's Annotated Study Bible" where we read:
"Teaching degrees of Punishment in hell" (Dake’s Annotated Study Bible, 1987 Ed. New Testament, Pg. 10, Note O)
Or a note from the Defender's Study Bible:
"This statement clearly sets forth the principle of degrees of punishment in hell..." (Defender’s Study Bible, Word Publishers, 1995, Pg. 1020)
Degrees of punishment in hell??
Remember, according to Jude 7 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is set forth as an example of an 'eternal fire'. That is to say, their destruction IS the example of that 'eternal fire'. Then in Matthew 10 we read that it will be 'more tolerable' for those cities IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT than it will be for others. There is a very obvious problem with both Jude 7 and Matthew 10:15 for those who would use them as proof that the inhabitants of those wicked cities are suffering in an eternal hell; namely that the concept of eternal torment, and indeed the word HELL itself, are completely absent from both passages. Some have been so blinded by their religious teaching and their traditions that they cannot grasp that simple fact.
Will we ever begin to realize just how blind our preconceived ideas make us to what the Bible actually says? How can Matthew 10:14-15 be talking about 'degrees of punishment in hell', when 'hell' is never mentioned in the passage? How is it that the passage clearly reads 'IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT' and then our commentators boldly instruct us that this means 'IN HELL'? In what way does ‘In the day of judgment’ mean ‘in hell’?
But furthermore, how can this passage possibly mean that it will more more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah 'in hell' than for the wicked Judean cities that rejected Jesus? Does that make any sense at all? If hell is actually like what we're always told it is, then what could a statement like that possibly mean? Do the wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah get a cooler corner of hell? Are their burning souls made less sensitive to the tormenting flames and the devouring worms? Does it matter much since this conscious punishment supposedly lasts for all eternity? Doesn’t this type of reasoning make nonsense of the scriptures?
No, Jesus is not telling us that there are ‘degrees of punishment in hell’, and we can be certain of that fact for two reasons. First, there just is no ‘hell’ mentioned anywhere in the passage, and second, the passage emphatically states when this punishment takes place - IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.
If we take the Bible for what it actually says rather that what we've been told it means we can ascertain a few facts:
1) Matthew chapter 10 does not say that it will be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah 'in hell'; It says it will be more tolerable 'in the day of judgment'. Why are so many believers so quick to inject their preconceived ideas here while apparently losing their ability to read plain English? If this passage is speaking of 'degrees of punishment' at all, then those punishments necessarily must be meted out within the time frame specified in the passage; 'In the day of judgment'! Again, the concept of punishment in 'hell' is entirely absent.
2) Mathew chapter 10 says that it shall be more tolerable for 'THE LAND of Sodom and Gomorrah' in the 'Day of Judgment'. Read it again… THE LAND OF SODOM IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT - NOT souls burning eternally in hell. Whatever the ‘day if judgment’ is, we can infer from this that the land of Sodom must exist during that time. Is that a valid inference? Certainly it is much more sound than reading into the text a hell with varying degrees of punishment. If the concept of a land being judged during the day of judgment is foreign to you, might I suggest that you may have a faulty view of what that judgment entails?
3) Matthew chapter 10 says nothing about the eternal destiny of Sodom following the judgment, only that it will be more tolerable for Sodom IN, or DURING the day of judgment than for those lands who rejected the preaching of Jesus and his disciples.
Little attempt is made by most Christians to explain these facts. Having already decreed that the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah have been destroyed forever, and that their inhabitants are already burning in an eternal hell, the best they can do is assert that Mathew 10 teaches 'degrees of punishment in hell'. But none of that changes what the passage actually says. If we are going to be scriptural then we must conclude that the final judgment upon the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah has not yet taken place, and that those lands will once again exist when it does.
I can almost hear the howls of protest! Based on Jude 7, and the fact that it says these cities were destroyed by an 'eternal fire', how can I suggest that those cities and their inhabitants have any future restoration in the 'day of judgment'? Simple.
Because:
1) The 'eternal' destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah isn't what you think it is....
2) The 'day of judgment' isn't what you've been taught it is, and...
3) The Bible says so.
But isn't that a contradiction? How can an 'eternal destruction' allow for any future restoration?
Fortunately the Bible answers that question for us.
But the Bible has much more to say about the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah; One such example from the Book of Matthew is shown above. We read: 'It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city' (those cities in Judea which had rejected the preaching of Jesus and his disciples).
This is the type of passage that should challenge our thinking. If we say, as many Christians believe, that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are already burning in an 'eternal fire' (hell), then what are we to make of the language of Matthew 10? There is clearly a future 'day of judgment' coming for those wicked inhabitants, but in what way is any judgment meaningful if they have already been confined to eternal flames? Do the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah get temporarily released from the flames, judged, and confined to the eternal fire once more? In what way can confinement in eternal fire be more tolerable for some than for others? These kinds of questions should provide a clue that there is more going on here.
The fact is, most Christians actually really do believe in two different hells; A temporary one prior to the day of judgment, and a final one following. This distinction rarely appears in casual conversation about hell, but many believe that it is demanded by the questions we just raised. But as I have stated, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by 'eternal fire' is certainly no proof of any fiery place of torment prior to the last judgment, and there is in fact NO scripture anywhere that portends any such place.
What do Christians make of the language of Mathew 10, that it shall be 'More tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah' than for others?
Typical responses are similar to those found in reference works such as the Dake's Annotated Study Bible" where we read:
"Teaching degrees of Punishment in hell" (Dake’s Annotated Study Bible, 1987 Ed. New Testament, Pg. 10, Note O)
Or a note from the Defender's Study Bible:
"This statement clearly sets forth the principle of degrees of punishment in hell..." (Defender’s Study Bible, Word Publishers, 1995, Pg. 1020)
Degrees of punishment in hell??
Remember, according to Jude 7 the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is set forth as an example of an 'eternal fire'. That is to say, their destruction IS the example of that 'eternal fire'. Then in Matthew 10 we read that it will be 'more tolerable' for those cities IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT than it will be for others. There is a very obvious problem with both Jude 7 and Matthew 10:15 for those who would use them as proof that the inhabitants of those wicked cities are suffering in an eternal hell; namely that the concept of eternal torment, and indeed the word HELL itself, are completely absent from both passages. Some have been so blinded by their religious teaching and their traditions that they cannot grasp that simple fact.
Will we ever begin to realize just how blind our preconceived ideas make us to what the Bible actually says? How can Matthew 10:14-15 be talking about 'degrees of punishment in hell', when 'hell' is never mentioned in the passage? How is it that the passage clearly reads 'IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT' and then our commentators boldly instruct us that this means 'IN HELL'? In what way does ‘In the day of judgment’ mean ‘in hell’?
But furthermore, how can this passage possibly mean that it will more more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah 'in hell' than for the wicked Judean cities that rejected Jesus? Does that make any sense at all? If hell is actually like what we're always told it is, then what could a statement like that possibly mean? Do the wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah get a cooler corner of hell? Are their burning souls made less sensitive to the tormenting flames and the devouring worms? Does it matter much since this conscious punishment supposedly lasts for all eternity? Doesn’t this type of reasoning make nonsense of the scriptures?
No, Jesus is not telling us that there are ‘degrees of punishment in hell’, and we can be certain of that fact for two reasons. First, there just is no ‘hell’ mentioned anywhere in the passage, and second, the passage emphatically states when this punishment takes place - IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT.
If we take the Bible for what it actually says rather that what we've been told it means we can ascertain a few facts:
1) Matthew chapter 10 does not say that it will be more tolerable for the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah 'in hell'; It says it will be more tolerable 'in the day of judgment'. Why are so many believers so quick to inject their preconceived ideas here while apparently losing their ability to read plain English? If this passage is speaking of 'degrees of punishment' at all, then those punishments necessarily must be meted out within the time frame specified in the passage; 'In the day of judgment'! Again, the concept of punishment in 'hell' is entirely absent.
2) Mathew chapter 10 says that it shall be more tolerable for 'THE LAND of Sodom and Gomorrah' in the 'Day of Judgment'. Read it again… THE LAND OF SODOM IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT - NOT souls burning eternally in hell. Whatever the ‘day if judgment’ is, we can infer from this that the land of Sodom must exist during that time. Is that a valid inference? Certainly it is much more sound than reading into the text a hell with varying degrees of punishment. If the concept of a land being judged during the day of judgment is foreign to you, might I suggest that you may have a faulty view of what that judgment entails?
3) Matthew chapter 10 says nothing about the eternal destiny of Sodom following the judgment, only that it will be more tolerable for Sodom IN, or DURING the day of judgment than for those lands who rejected the preaching of Jesus and his disciples.
Little attempt is made by most Christians to explain these facts. Having already decreed that the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah have been destroyed forever, and that their inhabitants are already burning in an eternal hell, the best they can do is assert that Mathew 10 teaches 'degrees of punishment in hell'. But none of that changes what the passage actually says. If we are going to be scriptural then we must conclude that the final judgment upon the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah has not yet taken place, and that those lands will once again exist when it does.
I can almost hear the howls of protest! Based on Jude 7, and the fact that it says these cities were destroyed by an 'eternal fire', how can I suggest that those cities and their inhabitants have any future restoration in the 'day of judgment'? Simple.
Because:
1) The 'eternal' destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah isn't what you think it is....
2) The 'day of judgment' isn't what you've been taught it is, and...
3) The Bible says so.
But isn't that a contradiction? How can an 'eternal destruction' allow for any future restoration?
Fortunately the Bible answers that question for us.
How Long is Forever?
Examine carefully the following passage. Here the prophet Isaiah is warning the land of Judah and its Jewish inhabitants of their coming destruction due to their own sin and rebellion:
"Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; Yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city: Because the palaces shall be forsaken; The multitude of the city shall be left; The forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, A joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks; Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, And the fruitful field be counted for a forest. Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, And righteousness remain in the fruitful field. " Isaiah 32:13-16
Now here's a passage you're not likely to hear preached on Sunday morning. Isaiah is warning the nation of Judah about their coming destruction and the perpetual desolation to follow. Notice carefully the warning: 'the palaces shall be forsaken' and the 'forts and towers shall be for dens.’ How long was that desolation to last? ‘FOR EVER'. Well that sounds pretty final doesn't it? 'Forever' means 'for all eternity' doesn't it? Or does it? Notice what comes next in Vers 13.
'The forts and towers shall be for dens FOR EVER... UNTIL the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field.' Isaiah 32:13
A perpetual destruction that will last for ever… until…
Notice what this passage does not say; It does not say that the desolation of Judah lasts until the 'spirit be poured out from on high'. No, it says that the desolation lasts FOR EVER, UNTIL the 'spirit be poured out from on high'.
This concept, that something can be said to last ‘forever’, and yet appear to come to an end is so foreign to the thinking of most modern Christians that they are almost certain to miss it. Scripturally speaking, ‘forever’ is a term used to denote a period in which the termination or horizon is hidden from our view. It is not ‘endless time’, or a dimension beyond time. It is time of which only God knows the duration, or the end. In the case of Isaiah 32:13-16 and the destruction of the Jewish nation, ‘forever’ is only until God pours out his spirit of restoration.
This point is conceded by even the most conservative Bible scholars. For example, commenting on Isaiah 32, the Bible Knowledge Commentary States:
Notice what this passage does not say; It does not say that the desolation of Judah lasts until the 'spirit be poured out from on high'. No, it says that the desolation lasts FOR EVER, UNTIL the 'spirit be poured out from on high'.
This concept, that something can be said to last ‘forever’, and yet appear to come to an end is so foreign to the thinking of most modern Christians that they are almost certain to miss it. Scripturally speaking, ‘forever’ is a term used to denote a period in which the termination or horizon is hidden from our view. It is not ‘endless time’, or a dimension beyond time. It is time of which only God knows the duration, or the end. In the case of Isaiah 32:13-16 and the destruction of the Jewish nation, ‘forever’ is only until God pours out his spirit of restoration.
This point is conceded by even the most conservative Bible scholars. For example, commenting on Isaiah 32, the Bible Knowledge Commentary States:
"The desolation (whether by Assyria or Babylon) would come on the land forever (‘ôlām). This Hebrew word does not always carry the same force as the English word “forever.” From verse 15 it is obvious that Isaiah saw a day when the desolation would cease. So it is better to understand ‘ôlām here as meaning “for a long indeterminable time.” (emphasis mine)
Martin, J. A. (1985). Isaiah. In J. F. Walvoord & R. B. Zuck (Eds.), The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Vol. 1, p. 1082). Victor Books.
The Pulpit Commentary likewise admits:
"For ever. This expression must not be pressed. Hyperbole is a recognized feature of poetry written under strong excitement.... Until. The expression “until” modifies the previous “for ever,” showing that the desolation was not always to continue.
Spence-Jones, H. D. M., ed. (1910). Isaiah (Vol. 1, p. 523). Funk & Wagnalls Company
I couldn't agree more with these conclusions, but they raise a serious question: Since we are forced here to admit that a destruction which is expressly stated to last 'for ever' will ultimately come to an end, then how can we say by the same logic that the perpetual destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah can never come to an end particularly when we take into account the words of Jesus that these cities must exist 'in the day of judgment' (Matthew 10:15)? If the desolation of Judah in Isaiah 32:15 lasts 'for ever', but only until God restores it, then why could this not also true of Sodom and Gomorrah?
Do we believe what the Bible says? Are we willing to admit that we might have been mistaken?
Some might think that Isaiah 32:13-16 contains a translation error, and that the Hebrew word Olam was never meant to mean ‘for ever’. But a quick study of this word, which appears over 400 times in the Hebrew Bible reveals that the translation is correct, and that Olam is the primary Hebrew word used to describe those things which are said to be eternal, or to last ‘for ever’.
Again, some might reason that while such a restoration is promised for the nation of Israel, such a restoration is never promised for the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although such a conclusion may at first seem reasonable, as we shall learn, it is also completely mistaken.
The comparison between the wickedness of unfaithful Israel and that of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is not unique to the New Testament, such as in Matthew 10:14-15, but is also found in the Old Testament.
Do we believe what the Bible says? Are we willing to admit that we might have been mistaken?
Some might think that Isaiah 32:13-16 contains a translation error, and that the Hebrew word Olam was never meant to mean ‘for ever’. But a quick study of this word, which appears over 400 times in the Hebrew Bible reveals that the translation is correct, and that Olam is the primary Hebrew word used to describe those things which are said to be eternal, or to last ‘for ever’.
Again, some might reason that while such a restoration is promised for the nation of Israel, such a restoration is never promised for the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah. Although such a conclusion may at first seem reasonable, as we shall learn, it is also completely mistaken.
The comparison between the wickedness of unfaithful Israel and that of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah is not unique to the New Testament, such as in Matthew 10:14-15, but is also found in the Old Testament.
Sodom to be Restored
Ezekiel chapter 16 is surely the key to understanding all that has gone before. Sadly it is rarely considered when studying the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Not only does it perfectly illustrate the way in which Sodom’s destruction was to be ‘eternal’ (in the sense of Isaiah 32:15 in that it lasts as long as God decrees), but it also illuminates the words of Jesus, and is paramount to understanding his words in Mathew 10, that it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment than for those cities who rejected his teaching. It is worth our most careful consideration.
"As I live, declares the Lord God, your sister Sodom and her daughters have not done as you and your daughters have done. Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them, when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:48-50
God, through the prophet Ezekiel, is addressing the unfaithful kingdom of Judah. Notice the comparison here. The sins of Judah and Jerusalem are being compared to the sins of Sodom. God declares that in his eyes, Jerusalem had sinned far worse than Sodom which had been destroyed for their wickedness. Because of their guilt, Judah and Jerusalem were also to experience destruction and desolation. As shown earlier, this destruction was also foretold by the prophet Isaiah - a destruction that was was to last 'for ever' until Judah and Jerusalem were restored by God's spirit. (Isaiah 32:14-15)
Similarly, the book of Ezekiel also speaks of this future restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. But within the context describing that restoration we read an absolutely astonishing statement concerning the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah:
Similarly, the book of Ezekiel also speaks of this future restoration of Judah and Jerusalem. But within the context describing that restoration we read an absolutely astonishing statement concerning the lands of Sodom and Gomorrah:
"I will restore their fortunes, both the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters, and the fortunes of Samaria and her daughters, and I will restore your own fortunes in their midst, that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all that you have done, becoming a consolation to them. As for your sisters, Sodom and her daughters shall return to their former state, and Samaria and her daughters shall return to their former state, and you and your daughters shall return to your former state." Ezekiel 16:53-55
What we have here is the key to understanding Jesus words about the land of Sodom in the day of judgment (Matthew 10:14-15). It is simply impossible to square these words with a doctrine which teaches that the ancient inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are suffering eternally in hell.
Again, the restorations of Judah and Jerusalem are promised, but they are promised along with the restoration of Sodom! To be sure, Sodom was extremely sinful and their destruction served as an example of God's wrath against sin. But the nation of Israel, having been given so much more divine favor incurred more guilt than even Sodom. Both nations were destroyed, and both have suffered perpetual desolation. But just as God promised restoration to the nation of Israel, he also promised restoration to the land of Sodom. Because wicked Israel felt that they were so much more righteous than the surrounding nations, they will suffer great remorse in the judgment when they see the restoration of Sodom - a remorse which will be magnified by Sodom receiving a more 'tolerable' judgment. None of this is speculation, it is what the word of God promises.
What conclusions about Sodom and Gomorrah Can thus be drawn from the scriptural evidence?
First, that the Bible never says that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were sent to hell, only that the destruction of their cities is set forth as an example of the vengeance of 'eternal fire'.
Second, that this eternal destruction and desolation lasts only as long God ordains it to last.
And lastly, that Sodom and Gomorrah are promised a future restoration along with the nation a Israel - a restoration which will occur 'in the day of judgment'. The concept that inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently suffering in an eternal hell is not only absent from scripture, but in direct contradiction to what the Bible actually teaches.
I hope this this brief study on the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah will challenge all believers to reexamine their belief in the doctrine of eternal torment, and to once again ask themselves if what they have been taught is really based on the scriptures alone.
See also our YouTube video about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah:
Again, the restorations of Judah and Jerusalem are promised, but they are promised along with the restoration of Sodom! To be sure, Sodom was extremely sinful and their destruction served as an example of God's wrath against sin. But the nation of Israel, having been given so much more divine favor incurred more guilt than even Sodom. Both nations were destroyed, and both have suffered perpetual desolation. But just as God promised restoration to the nation of Israel, he also promised restoration to the land of Sodom. Because wicked Israel felt that they were so much more righteous than the surrounding nations, they will suffer great remorse in the judgment when they see the restoration of Sodom - a remorse which will be magnified by Sodom receiving a more 'tolerable' judgment. None of this is speculation, it is what the word of God promises.
What conclusions about Sodom and Gomorrah Can thus be drawn from the scriptural evidence?
First, that the Bible never says that the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah were sent to hell, only that the destruction of their cities is set forth as an example of the vengeance of 'eternal fire'.
Second, that this eternal destruction and desolation lasts only as long God ordains it to last.
And lastly, that Sodom and Gomorrah are promised a future restoration along with the nation a Israel - a restoration which will occur 'in the day of judgment'. The concept that inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah are currently suffering in an eternal hell is not only absent from scripture, but in direct contradiction to what the Bible actually teaches.
I hope this this brief study on the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah will challenge all believers to reexamine their belief in the doctrine of eternal torment, and to once again ask themselves if what they have been taught is really based on the scriptures alone.
See also our YouTube video about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah:
