The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Sodom's Sin and Restoration


  1. I would like to know what exactly Sodom’s and her daughters’ sin was.
    Was it just greed and hostility or was it also homosexuality like often said?
    Does anybody have a list with all the Bible verses concerning Sodom and her daughters?
  2. There is also this verse (seldom mentioned) about the restoration of Sodom.
    What exactly is ment by this? Just that the city of Sodom will be reconstructed or that the people of Sodom will be saved?
    Thank you very much.
    Love and Shalom

This is the main passage concerning the sin of Sodom and her restoration. If you want to read all the passages about Sodom, go to (or another Bible site of your preference) and search for “Sodom.” Be sure to read the context, though, as a single verse is likely to be more confusing than enlightening. One thing I notice is how God goes from condemning to reconciling to condemning again, and then back. The prophets do this a lot, and I think it reveals a great deal of truth considering the anguish of the Father’s heart at seeing the unseemly behavior of His human children.


Dani, I think everyone who died in Sodom will be saved, because I believe that everyone who isn’t saved in this life will eventually see the truth, and receive Jesus and his gift of eternal life in the next.

As to divine justice and divine wrath, my thinking has changed radically in the last few years. I now see that God’s justice is about reconciliation and restoration (e.g., Zechariah 7:9), whereas the human definition of justice is more about retribution.

I find that “grace teachers” such as Steve McVey, Joseph Prince, Richard Murray, and Paul Ellis are good at making this clear. I think the various grace teachers are (often unwittingly) leading the church toward the acceptance of universal reconciliation. See, e.g., “The ‘Grace Teachers Lead Us Toward A Global Understanding of Salvation” at … versalism/

Before I had considered the viewpoints of these grace teachers, I used to fully agree with Cindy when she says

But now I no longer believe that ‘God goes from condemning to reconciling.’ God is unchanging, and has only ever been about reconciliation.

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting people’s sins against them, having put in us the word of reconciliation. 2 Cor. 5:19.

(What is changing is people’s ability to recognize, receive, and articulate this truth, in the face of all the more traditional explanations and arguments.)

I have recently discussed here (and earlier here) evidence for why I now believe that the Bible is only a part of a progressive revelation of God’s goodness, and that God, in spite of certain Scriptures stating otherwise, has never been anything other than nonviolent. (Hence, He is not the one who ‘rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire’ as stated in Genesis 19:24. —They were indeed destroyed by fire from heaven, but it was not fire sent from an angry God, but sent from a hateful, legalistic, adversary named Satan.)


Hola hermano,
why would you say that satan destroyed Sodoma?
Muchas garcias

Dani, I couldn’t sum up in a nutshell why I now believe it was Satan, not God, who wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah.
I would just invite you to go through the ideas and evidence in those two links I offered you, or go straight to the article by Richard Murray I referenced, titled,“SATAN: Old Testament Servant Angel or New Testament Cosmic Rebel?”
at … urray.html

Every blessing to you.

There is also an interesting NT verse in one of Paul’s letters:

That seems to me that satan somehow works for the salvation of people…
Agape and Shalom

Might be a good time for a reminder, because not everyone realizes this: God does not have an ‘opposite’. Surely He does have opposition, but there is no power equal to, but opposite of HIm. Our religion is not Manichean:

“One of the central doctrines which Mani brought forth was the doctrine of ontological dualism. Mani taught that there were two separate and opposing entities which existed from eternity: light vs. darkness, life vs. death, good vs. evil, etc.”
( … z3w8OIUSao)

Yes DaveB you CAN”T repeat this often enough… this Christianised ‘yin yang’ mindset is pervasive within churchianity.

I agree, Hermano. God does not administer penalties. He corrects,and when a person is corrected, He becomes reconciled to God.
See my signature statement.

Daniel, the sin of the people of Sodom included homosexuality. That is why anal sex between two men is called “sodomy.”

In the Biblical account of Sodom prior to its destruction, some men of Sodom (both old and young) wanted to “know” (have sex with) the two angels that came to Lot. Lot tried to prevent that by offering them his virgin daughters, but they insisted on having the angels:

I definitely think Satan, whether a real person, or just a representing of our selfish desires is definitely in a ‘reap what you sow’ way… I like what Paul said, I think it was Paul. “IF you Judge yourself you would not be judged” I think, there is something to be said that if you self-analyze and correct your behavior/mindset, then you likely won’t have to face it when the sin is full grown and brings force death. This death, may be figurative. But when sin grows, the consequences with it grow as well. If we judge ourselves before we give birth to full grown sin, we spare ourselves from great suffering and chastisement.

I am aware of the fact that men of Sodoma wanted to gang rape the angels which came as men.
But this IMO is something diffrent than homsexualiy/same-sex-attraction.
And I think it is very sad and hurting that people with same sax attractions are linked to that story.
And that people with same sex attrection/ homsexuals were and are brand as Sodomites caused and causes more harm than help!
Are there any scripture passages in original language that call people wit SSA/homosexuals Sodomites?

Agape and Shalom

Daniel, you asked, “Are there any scripture passages in original language that call people wit SSA/homosexuals Sodomites?”

Perhaps the word “sodomy” is of later origin in English, but the practice of sodomy is mentioned in 1 Cor 6:9 through the use of the word
“ἀρσενοκοιτης” (arsenokoitās).

The Online Bible Greek Lexicon gives the definition of this word as, “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.”

The first part of the word means “male,” and our English word “coitus” might be derived from the last part “koitās”, or possibly from the Latin “coition”
So the word “arsenokoitās” in 1 Cor 6:9 can only mean “coitus with a male”, that is anal intercourse with a male, commonly referred to as “sodomy.”

I do understand Paidion and qaz but as is said SODOMY does NOT one single time accure in the bible related to homosexuals.
And I think in history it caused so much harm that we should stop using it. I do really doubt that we are heping anybody.
Why would you help a person telling him/her that he/she is a Sodomit?

Shalom and Agape

Daniel, who is suggesting that a man can be helped by calling him a Sodomite? I think you are making assumptions far beyond what anyone has said.

Also, it is impossible for a woman to be a Sodomite. The word “Sodomite” is not synonymous with “homosexual.”

ONLY in terms of how we ‘moderns’ have come to use/apply the word… however, willingly or unwillingly many a female has engaged in the practice of anal sex i.e., <ἀρσενοκοίταις> – that in itself in terms of “committed heterosexual” relationships raises interesting implications in terms of what is considered “kosher” in terms of THAT relationship, as such, does anyone have the right to prescribe what is mutually acceptable between a “committed heterosexual” couple?

IF then a ‘blind eye’ be turned in this regard (because private matters are NO one else’s business) where does one feel obliged to impose or impinge one’s personal preferences contrariwise upon “committed homosexual” relationships where the same <ἀρσενοκοίταις> might likewise be practiced? Non-hypocritical consistency folks! :astonished:

Now to two clarifying points:

1) The ‘Sin of Sodom’ was grievous and gross inhospitality – of which <ἀρσενοκοίταις> was a major factor, BUT again, this practice of <ἀρσενοκοίταις> was one of dominance and degradation… a COMMON practice of ancient (and not so ancient) times against one’s considered enemies. Israel was called to be far and above this heinous practice or aggression; and “aggression” is the context of Gen 19.

**2) **Further to this… in Paul’s day the ban on <ἀρσενοκοίταις> was linked NOT to apparent “committed S/S relationships” (such as is popularly viewed today was not even in the picture) BUT to “idolatry” – which was public fair in pagan Corinth where many a male prostitute (quite apart from the females) engaged in said activities RELATIVE TO pagan temple worship; thus to be engaged in such <ἀρσενοκοίταις> was viewed (as it was under the OC, of which Israel at time in rancid rebellion partook) as being joined to Belial (2Cor 6:15-16) etc.

Sorry Paidion. I did not intent to suggest that any of you thinks that it helps to call someone a Sodomite. It was more of a retholical phrase.
My problem is just that as far as I know in the bible nowhere people are refered to as Sodomites because of commiting male anal sex.
The greek term used in the NT wouldn’t it be better translated as “people/men who encounter in anal sex”?
I am sorry if I offended anyone. It was not my intetion.

Shalom and Agape

where does that bible say that?


Are you saying (or is the Greek saying) aggravated rape, such as has happened in Darfur Sudan and other places?