Blog to discuss the book "The Apocalypse - Letter by Letter: A Literary Analysis of the Book of Revelation" and current events that point to the events described therein.
Proverbs 30 27 The locust hath no king, yet they all go out by their bands.
Apocalypse 9 3 And from the smoke of the pit there came out locusts upon the earth. And power was given to them, as the scorpions of the earth have power
7 And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle: and on their heads were, as it were, crowns like gold: and their faces were as the faces of men.8 And they had hair as the hair of women; and their teeth were as lions: 9 And they had breastplates as breastplates of iron, and the noise of their wings was as the noise of chariots and many horses running to battle. 10 And they had tails like to scorpions, and there were stings in their tails; and their power was to hurt men five months. And they had over them 11 A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans,
My brother-in-law, Steven Paul, explained that the first woe was the falling star, a holy bishop who apostatized from the faith. Indeed he identified him as Martin Luther and the woe as protestantism in general.
So the "locusts" relate to that time and that event. Steven did not go into much depth about them. He mentioned a couple of their characteristics - that breastplates of iron signified "a will hardened against all natural reason."
In the passages above, I am pointing out that in Proverbs, a characteristic of locusts is that they "have no king". They do not follow a single leader but rather they swarm together.
A major objection of protestantism is the primacy of the pope. They rejected central authority. As a result, they are untethered from the traditions and teachings of any body or person, the Church and Her pope specifically. So they are "free" to change traditional teachings at their whim or to satisfy current trends and fads, like women priests, gay marriage, gay bishops, etc.
But in Chapter 9 of the Apocalypse, they now have a king, the king of the abyss, Satan. Up until the time of the second woe, they are perfectly comfortable rejecting Christ's Vicar on earth. Instead, they opt for a more powerful and charismatic leader, an angel.
In his book, The Book of Destiny, Rev. Herman Bernard Kramer writes:
"These locusts obey him and do his work. He aims at the destruction of the Church, of the faith of his poor victims and of heir souls forever in hell. The promoters of heresy, error and immorality, are the subjects of Satan and bring irremediable and final ruin to all his followers."
Kramer goes on to give the history of opinions regarding when and whom these locusts are. My update is that we are seeing them in the persons like the current Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, folks like Eugene Robinson, and many evangelical "Christians" who rail against the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
There are also locusts inside the Church because they have not yet been cast out. We are indeed in the days of the end of the first woe and right before the second. Consider these passages carefully and don't be deceived.
Note: I don't know why people seem so surprised. Williams long ago departed from sound Christian leadership by promoting homosexual relations in the Anglican Church, causing a unrepairable schism. That he is now advocating Sharia law is only a further symtom of his deep psychosis. He said he was only for a "partial" implementation of Sharia, as though that were possible. He cited for example the relativley benign divorce laws - ones where only the husband has rights and the wife is treated as property, for example. And he said he wasn't for severe punishments (I assume he means beheading or amputation for stealing) That local Muslim leaders said they weren't even seeking such an accomdation shows how off his rocker this man is. To some extent, this works in favor of the separated brothers in the Anglican communion. The more wacky their leadership shows themselves to be, the more Anglicans return home to the true faith. If Williams wants to find common ground with Muslims, perhaps he should try enforcing Christian doctrine in the areas of divorce and human sexuality. Muslims are typically for chastity, against abortion and frown on prnography, for example.
Archbishop of Canterbury argues for Islamic law in Britain
The Archbishop of Canterbury came under fierce attack last night from the Government, his own Church and other religions after he advocated the adoption of parts of Sharia, or Islamic law, in Britain.
Leaders of all the main political parties made clear that they did not accept Dr Rowan Williams's assertion that the incorporation of some aspects of Sharia was "unavoidable".
Trevor Phillips, chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, condemned his comments as "muddled and unhelpful" and one senior bishop said that he was "surprised and concerned" by Dr Williams’s remarks.
Even the Muslim Council of Britain insisted that most members of the community did not want Sharia and emphasised that it had not discussed the issue.
Dr Williams argued, in a speech at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, for a "plural jurisdiction" that would allow Muslims to choose whether some legal disputes were resolved in secular or Sharia courts. He called for "constructive accommodation" over such issues as resolving marriage disputes.
Earlier, he told BBC Radio 4 that people should approach Islamic law with an open mind. Although emphasising that there was no place for "extreme punishments" and discrimination against women, Dr Williams stressed the importance of making all communities "part of the public process" in order to limit any oppression.
There are nearly 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, representing 2.7 per cent of the total population. Sharia courts do exist, but they have no legal standing and their decisions are not binding. Dr Williams said: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society."
However, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said that British law must be based on British values. "Sharia cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of Sharia be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes," he said.
Gordon Brown's spokesman added that concessions had been made in specific instances - such as a relaxation of the law on stamp duty to avoid it being paid twice when Sharia-compliant mortgages were used by Muslims.
They involve two transfers of property, so in theory stamp duty would be payable twice, but is in fact paid only once.
The Conservative response was even stronger. Baroness Warsi, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action said: "The Archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities... All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Equality before the law is part of the glue that binds our society together. We cannot have a situation where there is one law for one person and different laws for another."
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who claimed recently that parts of Britain were no-go areas for non-Muslims, was one of the first to criticise Dr Williams. Dr Nazir-Ali, the country's only Asian bishop, said: "English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition. It would be impossible to introduce a tradition like Sharia into this corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity."
Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, a Leicester imam and an expert in interfaith issues for the Muslim Council of Britain, said his fear was that Islamophobic and racist groups would use the Archbishop's remarks to attack Islam.
He added: "I welcome debate on this issue but my personal feeling is that the vast majority of Muslims do not want to see a parallel or separate system for Muslims in our society."
Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism, said: "I am staggered he has said this. The Jewish community has learnt the value both of participating in the British legal system but at the same time, in certain matters where the State gives it the right, to sort out those matters with its own rabbinic authorities. But we accept that British law has priority."
The Archbishop's lecture was one in in a series of discussions Islam in English Law, part of the Temple Festival.
