Sodom becomes the model of annihilationism
Loughborough reduces eternal fire to the ashes of Sodom and Gomorrah. But Jude says that they suffered the penalty of eternal fire, set forth as an example of the final judgment.
Por Rodrigo Custódio ·
The moment
On Thursday, March 24, 1881, the weekly Signs of the Times — volume 7, number 12, published in Oakland, California — printed the article "Is Sin Eternal?", signed by J. N. Loughborough, of Southampton, England. The masthead of the issue lists James White, J. N. Andrews, and Uriah Smith as editors, with J. H. Waggoner as resident editor.
Loughborough answers the question in the title with the thesis of annihilationism: sin is not eternal because sinners will not be punished eternally — they will be completely destroyed. The final fate of the wicked would be reduction to ashes, and the "model" of that destruction would be found in Genesis: Sodom and Gomorrah, consumed by the fire that fell from heaven.
The article cites Luke 17:29-30 — "it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all" — and 2 Peter 2:6 — "reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes" — to conclude that eternal fire is a fire that annihilates, not an endless torment. The "eternal," in Loughborough's reading, would describe the origin of the fire (which came down from the Eternal), not the duration of the penalty.
It is the old attempt to domesticate hell: to exchange conscious and eternal punishment for a definitive incineration, after which nothing remains — neither the sinner, nor the suffering, nor the problem of evil. The final judgment would become a great cosmic trash burning, and God's justice would be satisfied with ashes.
Charred ruins of a nineteenth-century brick block after a great fire, blackened beams still smoking and collapsed walls — an atmospheric period illustration.
The absurdity
The trick of the article lies in the word "example." Peter says that Sodom and Gomorrah were set forth "as an example" of those who would live ungodly lives — and Loughborough reads "example" as "exact model": if the cities turned to ashes and the fire went out, then the final judgment also goes out. But an example illustrates, it does not exhaust; the shadow is not the size of the body. Sodom illustrates the certainty of judgment, not its limit. Read the exact words of the printed page:
"We obtain a clear view of the final destiny of the wicked in the case of Sodom and Gomorrah. ... 'But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.' Luke 17:29, 30. ... 'Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those that after should live ungodly.' 2 Peter 2:6."
Source: Signs of the Times, vol. 7, no. 12, March 24, 1881 — p. 135.
Highlighted clipping of the printed page with the cited passage, edition of March 24, 1881, p. 135.
Why this is serious
The very text that Loughborough cites refutes him — and he does cite it. Jude, verse 7, says that Sodom and Gomorrah "suffered the penalty of eternal fire, set forth as an example." The article mentions Jude in passing, but dodges the point: Jude calls "eternal fire" exactly the fire that fell on the cities. If the fire of Sodom is "eternal" in the apostle's mouth, then "eternal" cannot mean "fire that goes out after incinerating." The example proves the opposite of what the article wants.
There is also a problem of proportion. Sodom was a temporal judgment on cities; the final judgment is an eternal judgment on persons. Jesus, in the same discourse cited by the article (Luke 17), speaks of the day when the Son of man will be revealed — and in Matthew 25 He Himself defines the outcome: "these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal" (Mt 25:46). The same adjective — "eternal" — qualifies the punishment and the life. If the punishment of the wicked is temporary, the life of the righteous is also; annihilationism, taken seriously, incinerates heaven along with hell.
The article further redefines "vengeance of eternal fire" as mere power to burn fuel — as if divine justice were a chemical phenomenon. But the Bible speaks of eternal fire as the instrument of a righteous Person, not as an accident of nature. "Vengeance" belongs to the Lord; the fire is servant, not lord. To reduce judgment to combustion is to exchange theology for physics.
And the underlying motive is sentimental, not exegetical: eternal hell seems too cruel, so it must be abolished by theological decree. But what defines God's justice is not our sensibility — it is His holiness. A God who regards sin so lightly as to resolve it with ashes is not more merciful; He is merely smaller. The cross shows the opposite: sin was so serious that it cost the blood of the Son. Whoever finds hell exaggerated has not yet understood the cross.
Street covered in ashes of a nineteenth-century American city after a great fire, ruined shopwindows and a blackened streetlamp — an atmospheric period illustration.
The verdict of the Scriptures
Jesus left no room for annihilationism: "these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal" (Mt 25:46). The parallelism is intentional and unbreakable — the same Greek word measures both eternities. Whoever cuts short the duration of the punishment cuts, with the same scissors, the duration of the life. The article wants a temporary hell with an eternal heaven; the text offers both eternities or neither.
Revelation describes the final scene without anesthesia: "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night" (Rev 14:11). Smoke that ascends "for ever and ever," with no rest day or night — that is not the cold ash of an extinguished city, it is continuous and conscious torment. And concerning the beast, the false prophet, and the devil: "they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (Rev 20:10). For ever and ever is not the language of rapid incineration.
Jude, cited by the article itself, seals the case: Sodom and Gomorrah suffered "the penalty of eternal fire" (Jude 7). The fire that fell on the cities is called eternal by the apostle — not because the flames still burn on the plain, but because the judgment it announces is the eternal one. Loughborough used Jude as a witness; Jude testifies against him.
As for Peter's "example," Scripture itself explains it: the cities were set forth as an example "unto those that after should live ungodly" (2 Pet 2:6) — an example of the certainty and severity of judgment, not of its expiration date. The flood was also an example, and yet the final judgment will not be a flood. Examples illustrate God's character, not hell's stopwatch. Sodom proves that God judges; it does not prove that He erases.