I think this is an excellent question; “would a metaphorical fire change anything…”? Yes, in my opinion, it would change a lot about the actual example that Sodom and Gomorrah are, Scripturally speaking, concerning the punishment/condition that the lost will receive were we to interpret what the Bible means by the ‘eternal fire’ to be one that was so metaphorical that it didn’t actually consume the lost. What is the ‘condition’ of Sodom/Gomorrah today?
2 Peter 2:6 if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly
Jude 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Therefore, an even better question is, in my opinion; wouldn’t a metaphorical fire that didn’t ever burn up (consume) whatever is thrown into it go against the many examples in Scripture that teach us what the effects of this fire is like? Here’s just a few examples:
1) This fire turn Sodom into “ashes” (
2 Peter 2:6) and is used as an example of what it will do to the lost.
2) Lost people’s punishment (
Jude 1:7) = what happened to Sodom (turned to ashes).
3) The Lord of host’s
salvation of the saved (
the survivors). What exactly is it that the survivors ‘survive’? What is the destiny/punishment of the lost that is vividly described/exampled for us in Isaiah, 2 Peter, Jude and even elsewhere (including Rev) through the several descriptions of this “eternal fire” effect on the lost:
a. Is 1:9-10 If the LORD of hosts had not left us a few survivors, we should have been like Sodom, and become like Gomorrah. Hear the word of the LORD, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!
b. “devours the stubble”
Isaiah 5:24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire devours the stubble, and as dry grass sinks down in the flame, so their root will be as rottenness, and their blossom go up like dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts, and have despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
c. A ‘metaphoric Hell fire’ = one that doesn’t actually consume, makes zero sense of: Isaiah 29:6 you will be visited by the Lord of hosts with thunder and with earthquake and great noise, with whirlwind and tempest, and the flame of a devouring fire.
d. Some defending ECT have made the point that the lost people have to still be alive to kindle the ‘eternal fire’ of Hell. That’s in error according to Isaiah 30:33
For a burning place has long been prepared; indeed, for the king it is made ready, its pyre made deep and wide, with fire and wood in abundance; the breath of the Lord, like a stream of sulfur, kindles it. Note what kindles this Hell fire is the breath of the Lord (not dead flesh).
e. Some have defended ECT by suggesting that destruction of the lost is not as ‘fearful’ as ECT would be. I reject that argument because of passages like:
Isaiah 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless:
“Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire?
Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?”
And
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
And
Luke 12:5 But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!
I am reserving my vote on this thread for a little while longer. Hoping for some Biblical evidence and looking over the evidence presented so far. I certainly cannot vote for option 1 since the OP asked for Scriptures that support our votes. Frankly, I don’t know of any that support Option 1 but still waiting.