Hell Is Real: An Open Letter to ‘Signs’ Editor Marvin Moore
Dear Mr. Moore:
Reading “When God Destroys Sin” in the January, 1996, Signs of the Times, I immediately took notice of the NIV’s use of the word “hades” instead of the KJV’s “hell” and then found myself troubled by your assertion that those whose names are not written in the Lamb’s book of life spend eternity simply lying dead in the grave. A few days later, with these disconcerting thoughts still upon my mind, I (by chance?) came across a book I’d heard of but had never laid hands on, G.A. Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions. Flipping through the book, I astonishingly stopped at chapter eighteen, “Judgement or Interment?” There before me lay discussion of the very questions pulsing through my head.
To begin, I have for the longest time found myself interested in language choice and use. This is especially true when concerning the recent move to “improve” and “correct” the Bible’s King James Version language. I’m well aware of the two most popular reasons for pushing the KJV aside: First, enterprising “editor-translators” have discovered the considerable profits derived from sale of new versions of the world’s best selling book, the Bible. But in order to copyright a translation, and therefore collect royalties, editors must produce a “new” product substantially different from the original or existing versions of the text. If a translation and an original or existing text contain too many of the same words, or if syntax is overly similar, the work is not considered a new version by present established standards. Thus, as with the NIV and other new versions, editors work-up new vocabulary and reform sentence structure in order to own the rights to a “new” work.
Second, the notion that the KJV is unclear and difficult to read has long propped-up the argument favoring the supposed need for an improved, corrected version of the Bible. But despite studies to the contrary — 23 of 26 which show the KJV to be the simplest and easiest version to read, based on analysis of syntax and sentence and word length (average syllables per word) — the myth of the KJV’s inferiority continues. By allowing KJV language to be changed for benefit of financial gain or in the name of clarity and improvement, the way for purposeful corruption of the text has been cleared. One such example of this (and there are many) is the issue of “hades” versus “hell.”
Any word used in place of “hell” obscures and changes hell’s meaning as a place of everlasting suffering. Riplinger agrees:
Hell’s presentation in the Bible can hardly be extinguished, but recent [bible] versions have diluted it by submerging the reader in a welter of words, substituting “death,” “grave,” “sheol,” “hades” and “the depths” for the word “hell.” [Using these] ambiguous words fractures the impact. The shatterment flies in the face of clarity, obscuring God’s warning [emphasis added]. (291)
NIV editor R. Laird Harris admits to this lack of clarity: “[Hell’s] translation brings up a number of theological…matters. There is discussion as to what it means…a number of modern versions simply do not translate the word…They…leave each reader to decide for himself” (Riplinger 294). Riplinger goes on to show the many places in the Old and New Testaments where the NIV, NKJV, Jehovah Witness New World Bible, and others do not translate the Hebrew “sheol” and the Greek “hades” (294). And if in need of further evidence documenting the attempt to lessen or do away with the violence of hell, one can look at Deuteronomy 32:22, Job 26:6, Proverbs 23:14 and 27:20, and Isaiah 28:18 and 57:9 to clearly see that NIV editors translate “hell” as “death,” even though the Hebrew words for “death” — ”muth” or “maveth” — appear in none of the aforementioned verses (292).
As just mentioned, the replacement of KJV language with new syntax goes much further than the “hades-hell” issue briefly touched upon above. Another important observation made by Riplinger is new versions’ replacement of the “highly explicit word ‘everlasting’ with the non-descriptive word ‘eternal’” (297). Matthew 18:8 and 25:41 are two obvious examples where the NIV’s “eternal fire” has taken the place of the KJV’s “everlasting fire.” On the surface this seems like nitpicking, especially when finding that the dictionary not only considers “everlasting” and “eternal” synonyms, but even uses one to define the other and vice-versa. Yet, Random House Webster’s College Dictionary goes to great lengths to establish, and then clarify, subtle shades of meaning: “‘Eternal’ is, by its nature, without beginning or end . . . . That which is ‘everlasting’ will endure through all future time” (458). Let’s look at Matthew 25:41 from the KJV in order to get closer to what Riplinger asks us to focus upon.
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”
Jesus speaks here of fire that will “endure through all future time.” We can conclude also that the fire spoken of did not exist always, but was created for Satan at the time of his rebellion. The NIV, on the other hand, with the use of “eternal fire” in place of “everlasting fire,” has Jesus talking of fire “without beginning or end”; or, in other words, fire that has existed always. Notice how word substitution has produced contradiction: A fire that has not existed always but after creation endures through all future time is not like a fire that has existed always without beginning or end. They are, without question, different. Here lies the crux of Riplinger’s argument: “The changes, additions and omissions discovered in the new versions have affected the health of the body of Christ and taken it step by step away from the image of God” (5). When the explicit “endure through all future time” is replaced by the non-descriptive “without beginning or end,” Christ’s message is changed because “everlasting” and “eternal” have different meanings.
Another look from another perspective will establish how flip-flopping “everlasting” and “eternal” creates other differences as well. Let’s take the definition of “everlasting,” along with the meaning of “eternal,” and plug both into Matthew 25:41. Do both truly convey real meaning? First, with “everlasting’s” definition inserted:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into fire that will endure through all future time, prepared for the devil and his angels.
The sentence does flow logically, describing fire not in specifics but in terms of time. We do not know what form the fire takes, nor do we know anything of its intensity or severity, but we do know that it endures through all future time. Now Matthew 25:41 with the definition of “eternal”:
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into fire without beginning or end, prepared for the devil and his angels.
Sounding good, and though technically logical (it’s not nonsensical), the sentence slides off-course into vagueness. Like the first verse above, specifics are lacking. But also missing is a satisfying description of the fire. A “fire that endures through all future time” conveys definite meaning, while a “fire without beginning or end” conveys no real meaning. Describing hell’s fire in this vague, disconnected way leaves “loopholes for skeptics and portholes for postulators,” thus inviting infinite interpretation (Riplinger 10).
A concluding thought on language choice and use: The KJV’s “everlasting” in Matthew 25:41 lets us know that in at least one respect (enduring through all future time), the fire, or hell, is not good. This makes us take notice, as it should. And hopefully it also scares us, just as it should. But with the NIV’s “eternal” inserted into the verse, along with the untranslated “hades” and mistranslated “death” of other passages eliminating hell’s violence, Jesus’s warning has been gently transmuted into ambiguity. And with no point made or meaning conveyed, we have no reason to pay close attention and therefore fear the fiery punishment of hell that all future time holds for some.
As I continue my discussion, where I’ll more pointedly argue against the notion of hell as simply a burial ground for the wicked, I’ll move through your article and address specific areas of concern.
God a Tyrant or Monster?
For different reasons, you and I both humbly agree with God that His refusing to blot Satan out of existence was the correct action. On the one hand, you ascribe to God human motivations and emotions in order to explain His reasoning in setting up the universe as He did. In your view, by allowing Satan continued existence, God avoids the negative label of “tyrant.” While not a tyrant in the sense that He exercises power oppressively and unjustly, God could easily be considered a tyrant in that He is an absolute ruler: fully complete, limitless, pure, and perfect. This is not wrong, as you seem to intimate with your “cowered before Him in fear” statement. To the contrary, the Old and New Testaments emphatically state over and over that this is good: Job 28:28 and Psalm 110:10 agree, saying, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom”; the first verse of Psalm 112 continues, “Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord”; and Matthew 10:28 adds, “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
On the other hand, I believe God’s reasons for allowing Satan to continue on through time in many ways parallel His reasons for allowing us to live as we do (a subject I’ll return to before I’m through). Banishing Satan from the universe would have served no positive purpose: First, Lucifer’s insubordination would have gone unanswered. Merely blinking him out of existence would not have been punishment for his rebellion; God has allowed Satan to live in order to pass judgement on him later (Revelation 20:10). Second, every angel in heaven contemplating a similar rebellion would have witnessed this move toward power and known by example that they had “everything to gain and nothing to lose”: If opposing God and succeeding, heaven and earth would belong to them; but if defying God and failing, they would simply be removed from existence without ever suffering retribution for their blasphemous takeover attempt. With no negative consequence for opposing God, many of these “all or nothing” gambles would surely have taken place.
Though believing I understand why Satan has been allowed to carry on, I readily admit that I do not know why God has allowed him to spread sin throughout 6,000 years of human history. But I do know that God uses Satan as His tool, cunningly forcing him to reveal his intentions, or as you state, allowing the “entire universe…see the full outworking of Satan’s plans.” Seeing these plans in progress, and recognizing the evil inherent in them, will bring many to the Lord, who has delivered us from the sin Satan has inflicted upon us. For others, the manifestation of the evil in Satan’s plans will mean little; they will either reject God or choose to follow Satan. When Satan’s plans finally come to a conclusion, however, all the wicked will confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
Sin Eradicated from Universe?
After the wicked have declared God to be right, acknowledging His justice and mercy, you state several times that “sin must be eradicated….because God wants to ensure that sin will never again rise in the universe.” While I don’t believe God ever said any such thing, I do believe that His stated plans of judgement achieve this very outcome. First, God has promised each and every one of us, far in advance and over and over again, that there will indeed be a place called hell where the wicked “shall be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10). But in opposition to your assertion, the existence of hell does not signal sin’s presence in the universe. Those imprisoned in hell will no longer be free to sin, therefore all sin will have stopped. Consumed by everlasting punishment for the “fruit of their doings,” the wicked will have no opportunity to ever sin again. Second, if sin were eradicated from God’s universe through the destruction of hell and its wicked, it would then be impossible for your second heavenly rebellion to ever take place, for this would require the sin which you state is now forever gone to exist somewhere in the souls of those with God in heaven. You’ve created obvious contradiction here, part of which arises from again attributing earthly emotions and motivations to heavenly beings. “In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye…we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:52). Those in heaven are no longer human, having been supernaturally transformed; in the same way, “life” in heaven in no way resembles life here on earth. Delivered by Jesus Christ from sin, all those in heaven enjoy and contribute to God’s sin-free environment.
God’s Promised Justice
You intimate throughout “When God Destroys Sin” that God would never put the wicked in a place of everlasting torment because such an act of punishment is wrong and “contrary to His nature.” I believe personal opinion, or perhaps a natural distaste for human suffering, has led you to see what you want to see, for scripture says the exact opposite concerning punishment and vengeance. In speaking of the Babylonian Empire, Isaiah foretold that the Lord “will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity…and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible” (13:11). Jeremiah, when predicting the doom soon to befall his nation for its many sins, wrote: “I will punish you according to the fruit of your doings, saith the Lord: and I will kindle a fire in the forest thereof, and it shall devour all things round about it” (21:14). And Paul, in 2 Thessalonians, tells us that the “Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven…taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power [emphasis added in all]” (1:7–9).
Quite obviously, there is nothing sinful in punishing those who, in spite of God’s numerous warnings and loving admonitions, have chosen to deny, reject, and disobey Him. Likewise, there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of justice, especially God’s justice. Administering deserved reward or punishment to all for their doings is what God, without waver, has promised all along:
“I will punish them for their ways, and reward them for their doings.” (Hosea 4:9)
“The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” (Matthew 13:41–43)
In terms of flawed human understanding, God’s system of justice might (to some) seem harsh, even cruel. It is severe, as Paul tells us, but severe in both its rewards and punishment; severe in its fairness: “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness” (Romans 11:22). But God, you say, would never allow the wicked to endure everlasting torment in order to “pay for the misdeeds of a few short years on this earth.” Why would He not? He tells us time and again that He will do exactly that. Hebrews 11:25 warns by example that the wise choose to “suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.” Length of time on earth holds no weight in God’s justice system. What matters is simple: Do we heed His warnings and accept His free gift of salvation or remain under Satan’s curse? For those who choose the latter, He promises a final destination of “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels….the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are” (Matthew 25:41, Revelation 20:10).
Hell as Death?
Referring to the verses from Matthew and Revelation in the paragraph above, Riplinger says,
“Hell was not created for man, but ‘hell hath enlarged herself’ (Isaiah 5:14) to accommodate those of mankind who reject the love of God. The existence of hell does not diminish the love or loveliness of God. It speaks only of the rabid villainy of creatures — Satan, his angels, and mankind, who as Matthew records, could ‘spit in his face’ (26:67), the face of their creator. Often the unwillingness of man to face his own culpability and sinfulness prompts him to saddle God with the burden of blame for the existence of hell. Truthfully, hell pronounces the malfeasance of the creatures, not of the creator. The doctrine of hell is an affront to proud mankind.” (291)
The idea of hell as death provides mankind an earthly comfort with which to obscure the human wisdom and common sense so valued by man. For example, you state in December’s “Putting Satan in His Place” that those in God’s Kingdom “will never go through the pain of divorce, never suffer from accidents or crippling diseases, never attend another funeral.” Although heaven will be far better than this, more wonderful than you and I can collectively imagine, I’d still feel blessed to live in the world you’ve described. But if hell for the wicked is nothing more than death, then the wicked would also be “blessed,” for they too will never experience divorce, disease, or the loss of a loved one. While intended to be a fast and easy way to put man’s mind at ease, the doctrine of hell as death instead creates unavoidable problems: First, as with my observation above, it suggests that no matter how we live or what we do we’re all winners in the end. This “everything to gain, nothing to lose” gamble offers man no incentive to do what is right, to live by God’s laws. And we do need incentive, because human nature has never leaned toward obeying God’s laws. (Well, not since the short period of time between man’s creation and Satan’s appearance in the garden in Eden.) With no incentive and nothing to lose, and all fear of the consequences of life’s choices and actions removed, men would willingly deny God and move to satisfy all forms of temptation. As a result of their transgressions, they would fail to reap God’s heavenly rewards; but would, in a backward, perverse way, enjoy in death an escape from responsibility and punishment. Any who might reach heaven would get there by serving God and obeying His laws merely for the sake of doing so.
Second, hell as death makes our existence on earth and God’s reason for putting us here pointless and meaningless, an exercise in uselessness. And if mankind truly exists for no reason, God would indeed be a monster, playing with humans on earth as if toys or pieces of a complex board game.
The self-created problems above, however, are inconsequential, because God speaks to the contrary. For those with Him, God promises to “wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away” (Revelation 21:4). But for the “fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars,” God promises a “part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Revelation 21:8).
The explicit “second death” of Revelation 21:8 should not be quickly passed over and read as simply “death.” First of all, a “second death” is an idea incomprehensible to humans; God warns us of a reality only He understands. Second, just as “life” in heaven is unlike life on earth, so too is God’s second death different from man’s natural death. Third, Jesus says in Revelation 2:11 that “He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death [emphasis added].” If Jesus promised His own an escape from hurt and pain, then the “second death” must therefore be a hurtful and painful experience, not a gentle, painless drift into everlasting death. And fourth, God does not contradict Himself: He would never, on one hand, promise that those worshipping the beast and his image be “tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night” and then, on the other hand, command that unbelievers, murderers, and idolaters be resurrected in order to simply be put to death a second time (Revelation 14:10–11). John records the words of God, who says exactly what He means.
The doctrine of hell as death is a comfortable daydream, one millions would do well to have this as their end. But when we wipe the stardust from our eyes, we clearly find stated time and again that it is not God who sends the wicked to hell, but the wicked themselves who reject God’s salvation and choose entry into the “fire that never shall be quenched” (Mark 9:43).
Hell’s Location
Hell does exist now, in the present, as Isaiah 14:15 tells us (Satan was cast into hell; therefore, there has to be a hell into which he was thrown); but reading the book of Revelation carefully, especially the twentieth chapter, we learn that although hell operates in the present, it remains uninhabited by the souls of men: Verse four speaks of those who will be raised from death to enjoy a thousand years of God’s perfect government, while verse five informs us that the “rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” Quite plainly, hell commences as a place for the earth’s wicked only after the millennium comes to an end, when the “rest of the dead,” or the wicked, are raised to be “judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works” (Revelation 20:12).
Revelation, and Matthew, Hebrews, Jude, and Isaiah, reveal repeatedly and unmistakably that eternal torment is an intrinsic part of hell, and a coming actuality for many. Again, Revelation 20:10 describes the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and false prophet “shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever,” while Matthew 25:41 clearly states that the earth’s cursed will join the devil and his angels in this everlasting torment. But perhaps the most lucid explanation preventing man from denying the existence of hell lies in Revelation 14:9–11:
“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”
To subtly imply that everlasting torment is a false belief manufactured by mean, misguided men — when God clearly says otherwise — can only be accounted for by an inexplicable desire to soothe the guilty, making them comfortable with the lives they have chosen to lead here on earth.
Moving on, the three problems you associate with the “doctrine of eternal torment” emanate from a purely personal belief that God would never subject humans to any such punishment. Though I’ve previously addressed problems one and two, God as a monster and the removal of sin from the universe, let’s look closer at problem three, the location of hell. While hell’s location may or may not be on the surface of the earth (I confess that I’m not certain; a case can be made for both points of view), I do not agree that heaven and hell cannot exist simultaneously. Hell can exist anywhere God desires. And it may very well be located in a far-off corner of the universe, or in or beneath the earth: Jesus, as recorded in Matthew, spoke of a place of suffering separated from earth when He said that the cursed “shall go away into everlasting punishment” (25:46); Isaiah speaks of a “hell from beneath” that is moved (14:9); the author of Jude, in verse six, refers to insubordinate angels “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness; and Paul, in Philippians, says that “at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth [emphasis added in all]” (2:10). Further, when describing the great heavenly city in Revelation, John clearly speaks of an imprisonment of or separation from the wicked when he says: “And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie” (21:27). If the wicked are dead and gone, never to return, zapped out of existence, why then would John offer this piece of information? Clearly, the wicked are out there, in hell somewhere, unable to ever enter God’s Kingdom. So, to unequivocally say that hell can only last a short time, because its supposed location on earth conflicts with God’s plan for a new earth, is the result of once more using imperfect human knowledge and wisdom to explain God’s supernatural power and plans. Heaven could be on the new earth’s surface, with hell below or nearby. Or hell could take its place on the surface of the earth with the new heaven close at hand. We simply do not know with any certainty, for it is impossible to establish the details of a reality authored by God.
Hitler, Blavatsky, Crowley
So Hitler (1889–1945) was “merciful enough to put his victims out of their misery?” Well, I’ve never before heard Hitler referred to as “merciful,” but even the most biased, inaccurate historical accounts document that Hitler in no way put any of his victims out of their misery. Tens of thousands of Jews and Christians in concentration camps died of starvation, dehydration, and disease before they could be systematically murdered. Many others, who by the grace of God live today to recount their horrific tale, were rescued while on the brink of death after months of food and water depravation. This sounds more like prolonged torture, not putting victims out of their misery. Further, Hitler directed his henchmen to perform countless “medical experiments” on healthy, innocent adults and children; two such procedures were implanting lime in women’s uteruses (to merely observe the body’s reaction?) and surgically joining the body parts of animals and humans in an effort to determine if science could create and sustain a hybrid life form. (I would suspect that on the subject of Germany’s “life form research” you’re a non-believer, for your writings seem to suggest an unwillingness to accept man as capable of such evil.) Again I ask, is this putting victims out of their misery?
As equally disturbing as Hitler’s unthinkable, unforgivable atrocities is your ill-advised comparison of God and the Führer. Why on earth suggest that God meet the standard set by one of his most extreme wayward creations? (I must confess that here I don’t understand your motivations, thought process, or point.) Hitler, a troubled, depraved human, may have chosen to pursue the role of monster and then abuse the power that goes with it, but he had no right to inflict pain and suffering on anyone. God, however, as Creator and Supreme Ruler, does have the right to assume the part of monster if He so chooses. But where Hitler was a temporal monster of evil, God is forever a monster of goodness. As the ultimate and most fair Server of Justice, God’s infliction of pain and suffering (hell) is only a fulfillment of His numerous warnings and admonitions and in no way places Him in your self-styled category of “monster.”
Russian born but London-based, occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831–1891) is considered by many the “godmother of the New Age movement.” One of her followers, New Age leader Vera Alder, says: “H.P. Blavatsky was one of the foremost to resurrect the Ancient Mystery teachings and interpret them for our time in a set of books which have become the Bibles, as it were, of the modern metaphysician or occultist” (Riplinger 27). Blavatsky, a prolific writer, committed much commentary to paper. On the King James Version she said:
“That which for nearly 1,500 years was imposed on Christendom as a book, of which every word was written under the direct supervision of the Holy Ghost; of which not one syllable nor a comma could be changed without sacrilege, is now being retranslated, revised and corrected and clipped of whole verses, in some cases of entire chapters . . . . [The] London committee for the Revision of the Bible . . . show[s] the origin of the bible to be occultism . . . and pagan.” (Riplinger 27–28)
Blavatsky’s ideas on Lucifer’s fall and descent into hell:
“Now there are many passages in the Bible that prove on their face, exoterically, that this belief was at one time universal; and the two most convincing are Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 [:12–17]. Christian theologians are welcome to interpret the great War before Creation . . . if they so choose, but the absurdity of the idea is too apparent.” (Riplinger 42)
Her thoughts on Satan as the Creator:
“[O]ne of the most hidden secrets . . . involves the so-called fall of Angels. Satan and his rebellious host . . . will thus prove to have . . . become the direct Saviors and Creators of divine man . . . . Thus Satan, once he ceases to be viewed in the superstitious spirit of the church, grows into the grandiose image . . . It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God. [The last line sits on a page headed ‘Holy Satan.’] Satan [or Lucifer] represents…the Centrifugal Energy of the Universe . . . this ever-living symbol of self-sacrifice for the intellectual independence of humanity.” (Riplinger 53)
And her view of the Bible’s repeated reference to the Father: “Holy Father of Evil, Sainted Satan . . . . This Father alone is the God of spirit . . . To compare him with the subordinate and Sinaitic Deity is an error. Did Jesus ever pronounce the name of Jehovah? Never!” (Riplinger 58–59).
The five preceding quotes come from Blavatsky’s Isis Unveiled (1877) and The Secret Doctrine (1888); books which, along with her other works, have immeasurably influenced the movers, shakers, and thinkers of the New Age movement. (Please know that I deplore quoting from secondary sources; in this case, however, it could not be avoided, for I could not locate any of Blavatsky’s books.)
Born a few years before Blavatsky’s death, English Satanist Aleister Crowley must surely have known of her work; his life, in any case, followed a similar path. Music journalist Stephen Davis, in Hammer of the Gods, writes:
“Crowley felt that real magic was hidden in man’s will and could be summoned by an unconscious process. In magic was the survival of the pre-Christian era, a natural world of spirits and powers that had been suppressed by the Church. Conventional morality was worthless; Crowley’s credo, with which he began his letters, became ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.’ Accordingly, he lived a life of imponderable adventure, excess, and decadence . . . . [H]e lived openly with several women at a time and was legendary for his unabashed use of euphorics — hashish, opium, cocaine, and heroin . . . . Crowley also achieved notoriety with what he called ‘sex magik,’ or sexual intercourse continued indefinitely, without orgasm, to produce long, drawn-out states of ecstacy and intoxication. London society was shocked when some of its most respectable married matrons were discovered to visit Crowley’s satanic temple . . . where ‘The Great Beast 666’ and ‘The Wickedest Man in the World’ (as he occasionally called himself) initiated them into the rites of sexual magik . . . . Suffering from asthma and bronchial infections, addicted to heroin, [Crowley, b.1875] died in Brighton in 1947, and was almost forgotten until the English rock musicians, who alone had the money and inclination to live as Crowley did, started reading about him years after his death.” (107–108)
This connection to rock music spread knowledge of Crowley and his antics around the globe, as a number of English musical acts influenced by their demonic countryman became popular around the world.
The defunct English foursome Led Zeppelin, arguably the most admired, successful, and influential group in modern music history, are closely linked to Crowley through their guitarist Jimmy Page. A collector of Crowley artifacts (he even purchased Crowley’s home), Page cultivated friendships with other Crowley-influenced artists, such as American filmmaker Kenneth Anger, who enlisted Page to provide soundtrack music for his film Lucifer Rising, a “ritualistic depiction of Anger’s interest in Satanism.” But though dabbling in the relatively isolated world of underground movies, Page and Led Zeppelin exerted an incalculable influence upon millions of teenage music listeners, the young fans who bought Led Zeppelin records, studied the lyrics, and sought-out magazines and books about their favorite band. In these books (such as the one I’m quoting from now), kids found their hero Page saying: “[Y]ou can’t ignore evil if you study the supernatural as I do. I have many books on the subject and I’ve also attended a number of séances. I want to go on studying it. Magic is very important if people can go through it . . . I think Aleister Crowley’s completely relevant to today. We’re all still seeking for truth — the search goes on” (Davis 211).
Now, do you really feel that the deserved punishment of the three wicked creatures discussed in brief above is to merely lie dead in the grave for eternity? Do you honestly believe that Hitler, Blavatsky, and Crowley — after playing God and purposefully murdering over four million Jews; after mocking God and inspiring others to espouse the foolishness of Christianity; after leading countless souls down the road to everlasting destruction — will each receive a gentle pat on the head and then be “put to sleep” after bending a knee before God? I sincerely hope this is not your position; for, again, the Lord tells us that “in the presence of the Lamb” those worshipping the beast and his image — the Hitlers, Blavatskys, and Crowleys of this world — will suffer day and night, for ever and ever. You do speak of suffering in “When God Destroys Sin,” but suffering that “must be brought to a close.” Whose suffering? Because you avoid mention of the suffering of those sinned against, you have to be speaking of the suffering sin has supposedly caused the sinner. This implies that life on earth was “hell,” or punishment enough, for the wicked, and that after “suffering” a lifetime of earthly “torment,” God simply requires them to acknowledge Him as right before putting them out of their “misery.” Once more, God’s Word speaks to the contrary: “But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost,” said Jesus, “hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation” (Mark 3:29).
In conclusion, I’ll return to an earlier paragraph in which I stated my belief that God’s reasons for allowing Satan to continue on through time in many ways parallel His reasons for allowing us to live as we do: Just as banishing Satan from the universe would have served no positive purpose, blinking the earth’s wicked out of existence would be of no positive value. Letting unbelievers off the hook without the promise of future punishment for their defiance would only encourage others to continuously challenge God. If death is the punishment for rejecting the Lord, why then would anyone ever come to Him? The threat of severe punishment, or hell, is one significant factor in preventing man’s mass rejection and unrestrained blasphemy of God. If man comes to the Lord only because he fears hell, then God’s warning of everlasting torment has served its purpose perfectly. Unlike with Satan, however, God has given each of us an entire lifetime — or until Jesus returns — to accept His gift of salvation. Some are given longer lives than others; but God has seen to it that we all have an adequate amount of time come to Him. Should we choose to do so, we are granted everlasting life; if we elect not to, we have chosen on our own to enter into the everlasting suffering of hell that God has guaranteed over and over.
Sincerely,
Ron Baxendale II; Broomfield, Colorado (1996)
