What does that have to do with the interpretation of the Locust of Revelation?
My point is that there has only ever been one legitimate divine religion, only one legitimate “Abrahamic” faith, and it has always existed - it is the Church, the Body of Christ, which before the Incarnation of our Savior existed in the form of Second Temple Judaism, before that, in the form of Judaism-in-Exile, and before that, in the form of the First Temple religion of the Hebrews, and before that, in the Tabernacle religion, and before the Tabernacle existed, and the liturgies of it as described in Leviticus, which remained the liturgies of the Temple, it was the religion of the Israelites in Egypt, as reformed by Moses and his brother Aaron, with the first Pascha, which was a typological prophecy of the Second Pascha*, and before that time it was the religion of Abraham and his sons, at which time there was not one Kohen or Levite, but rather Abraham sought out the Hierus Melchizedek, the King of Peace, who may or may not have been Jesus Christ, but who represented Him typologically, as is explained in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews**. And before Abraham, the religion of our God, the Holy Trinity, who we know through His incarnation as Jesus Christ, was the God of Noah and His sons, the God who destroyed Babel and blessed us with a diversity of languages which make the world more interesting than if we had just had one, and before that, He was the God who created Adam and Eve and was disobeyed by them, creating a right proper mess for all of us, and the God who they worshipped in repentance, and the God of their descendants, particularly the pious ones like Methuselah and Enoch, as opposed to those who were so bad it was necessary for a large scale flood to wash them off the earth (although they are in the same position as anyone from antiquity, in that thanks to the Harrowing of Hell, they were not deprived a pathway to salvation.
However, Islam is not an Abrahamic religion, Samaritanism is not an Abrahamic religion, although it is obviously the religion of the survivors of the Northern Kingdom, specifically the tribes of Ephraim and Manessah, and the Levites and Kohanim who served them as priests, and for that matter Rabinnical Judaism and Karaite Judaism are not Abrahamic religions, although the Jewish people are still blessed by God, but it is important that they embrace Christ as their Messiah, and so it is entirely proper for Christians to seek to evangelize the Jews and to convert them to Christianity, and to pray for such, since contemporary Judaism has clearly drifted considerably.
*As an interesting aside, for me at least, the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hell means that the firstborn sons of Egypt killed in the first Pascha were potentially, indeed I should say probably, saved by the firstborn son of God in the second Pascha on Holy Saturday, when he was in Hell making a ruin of it before His resurrection, and likewise their families; insofar as God was harsh with people during the era of the law, as St. Paul explained, it was like we were the heir to the estate, but still a child, and how a child, even though he is the heir to an estate, is like a slave in that he has governors and tutors and conservators of the estate, but when he becomes of age, he becomes free, in Galatians. But we must not forget that God is infinitely loving, and made provision for the salvation of people before Christianity became available, and this by the way is not a Universalist teaching, in that the people who our Lord reached out to in Hades, the realm of the dead, were free to refuse him and remain down there, or they could follow Him up to heaven, the only time that has perhaps been possible up until now, although it is possible that some people who presently appear to be damned and are tormented spiritually might, through prayers for their salvation, be relieved of some torment, and might be permitted by our Lord to enter into the life of the World to Come, but it is much safer to build a solid foundation for our salvation as much as we can (which is to say, not at all by ourselves, but only through cooperating with the Holy Spirit, for without the Spirit, we are building on sand, to use a parable of Christ our God).
**This I believe was probably written by St. Luke based on a sermon by St. Paul, based on its elegant and refined Greek prose which is stylistically superior to that of St. Paul, and it is generally well known that St. Luke was the most stylistically elegant author in the New Testament when it came to his Greek prose, however, St. John translates very well into English, especially his Gospel, even though his original Greek reads like the Greek you would expect from a teenaged Galilean fisherman who suddenly learned Greek but had no immediate occasion to use it, no doubt through the assistance of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, when the Apostles suddenly found themselves equipped with an array of languages they did not previously know, but while the Holy Spirit could convey perfect Greek, and probably did, I would expect that the members of the twelve experienced a deterioration of their skills over time, as often happens with people who know multiple languages but do not speak one of them for an extended duration. But in English translation, St. John reads as being exquisite. Also exquisite is the interpolated section which is not attested in the original manuscripts concerning the woman who was caught in adultery, whose execution our Lord prevented with his famous suggestion that “He who is with sin should cast the first stone,” which convicted her would-be executioners of sin and saved her life. That part translates extremely well in its details, indeed it reads with the elegance of the finest literature, for example, details like our Lord writing in the sand and sitting, apparently just chilling, when the event occurred, but of course, He was there for a reason, and that reason was the same reason why Christ our Lord, God and Savior is anywhere and everywhere, and that is, to save us by making present God the Father, as His only begotten Son and Word.
Still, it is interesting to consider who actually wrote the interpolated section, perhaps it being a Johannine scripture but one narrated by him elsewhere, or perhaps it is a fragment of the lost Q document, or of the Gospel of Peter, or perhaps the oldest manuscripts we have are all defective, but this seems unlikely. Although given that the Revised Common Lectionary manages to exclude that vital passage, despite having three years to get around to reading it (except for those churches wise enough to use Year D, which includes it and focuses on the Gospel of John), it is I suppose possible.
