I don't think there will be a Millennial Temple building.

I know my fellow Pre-Millennial Futurists are very afraid of any interpretation of Scripture that can be viewed as less then Literal.  I have more and more come to feel "Literal" is not the right word, what I say is that I take The Bible seriously.

What I want to discus here is that denying that the Old Testament Prophecies of a future Temple might very well be fulfilled by the New Testament Doctrine of The Church as The Temple of God, demeans the importance of that NT Doctrine in ways that I feel damage our Understanding of God's Word more then any allegorical interpretation of Scripture ever could.

And I don't view it as merely symbolic, as of Pentecost The Church is absolutely the literal definition of what a Temple is, in both Pagan and Judeo-Christian thought a Temple is what houses the Divine.  It is only what sounds like the description of a building and sacrifices that is interpreted as symbolic here.

And this Doctrine isn't limited to Paul, which I mention not just because of the Anti-Paul people out there, but because a Doctrine needs more then one witness.  It's in Revelation, both in the message to the church at Philadelphia and in the description of New Jerusalem (The 12 Apostles as Pillars is referencing Paul's own terminology in Ephesians 2 and Galatians).  And if you don't think Paul wrote Hebrews, Hebrews alludes to it.  Jesus teaches in John 4 that a time will come when God no longer dwells in a Temple building.  And it's implied that's what Stephen was stoned for teaching in Acts 6-7.  And it's in 1 Peter 2:4-5.

I've seen people say that Paul teaches the doctrine in the sense of an Individual Believer's Body being God's Temple only once so we can't build Doctrine on that (in 1 Corinthians in chapter 3 and 6).  However Peter refers to his Body as The Tabernacle in 1 Peter 1:13-14.  That is a second Witness more so then another reference from Paul would be.

Meanwhile in John's Gospel Chapter 2, we see Jesus refer to His Body as "This Temple".  That means that the doctrine of The Church as the Temple of God is inherently related to The Church as The Body of Christ.

And I've already talked about how The Body of Christ and Bride of Christ doctrine are related because of when Jesus says a Husband and Wife become one Flesh, and how Eve was made from Adam's flesh.  And the same passages of Revelation I alluded to above also reference the Bride of Christ doctrine.

And plenty of Prophecies about either The Millennium or New Jerusalem lack any reference to a Temple.  The Christian Doctrine of The Millennium is dependent on Revelation 20 and 1 Corinthians 15, neither mentions a Temple building.  Ezekiel 37 I view as about The Millennium and it mentions no Temple building, Paul quotes Ezekiel 37 when building his Church as the Temple doctrine in 2 Corinthians 6:16.  Even Zechariah 14 while talking about the Feast of Tabernacles being observed doesn't mention a Temple, Torah observant Christians observe that Feast without needing a Temple.

Isaiah 65 and 66 are viewed as about The Millennium by many but the New Heaven and New Earth by me.  Either way he makes clear there will be no Sacrifices.

Ezekiel 40-49 is the only presumed Prophecy of The Millennium that in detail describes a Temple Building and Sacrifices being carried out, there is no second Witness, other passages you can take as referring to a Temple in The Millennium lack details.  Yet the part on Yahuah-Shammah is clearly among what Revelation is drawing on in it's account of New Jerusalem, where all Christians agree the only Temple is The Church.

And when The Holy Days are discussed in Ezekiel 45, First Fruits, Pentecost, Yom Teruah and Yom Kippur are left out.  Those happen to be the Holy Days most dependent on the Temple rituals.

And so here I point back to my past discussions on Ezekiel's Temple.  [Update: I now have this improved discussion of the topic.  Which was in turn a follow up to this revisiting.]

So now you may ask, what about the "Third Temple" as in a Temple The Antichrist will desecrate?

Historicism is predicated on saying The Temple Paul refers to in II Thessalonians 2 is the same one he means in the Corinthian Epistles and Ephesians 2.  My issue there is mainly that Paul clearly means something unmistakable.  Even so the idea that the literal and symbolic meaning could both be true is possible, I have for many reasons become convinced The Antichrist will be within The Church.  But the issues with saying The Pope fulfilled this already are endless.

I firmly believe the Eschatological portions of the Thessalonian Epistles were Paul's commentary on the Olivite Discourses.  Jesus didn't use the word Temple there, but in both Matthew and Mark there is no denying he is using geographical terms.

Mark 13's Abomination of Desolation reference has often been interpreted to imply the location of The Temple but not necessary require the building itself to still be standing.  Which is why many have seen Hadrian's Temple built after the Bar Kokhba Revolt as fulfilling this.

However most of my fellow Futurists feel Matthew 24 saying "in" and "Holy Place" means inside a Temple building.  But in fact the Greek terminology there can refer to an outside as well as inside sacred location, the word for "in" is sometimes also translated "on".

The only reference to an Earthly Temple building in Revelation is at the start of Revelation 11.  In that case I recently read someone arguing that what the Greek Text actually says is that in 42 months Jerusalem will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles for an indeterminate amount of time.  I have shown that Luke 21 begins that time frame when The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD.

This person was a Futurist in their overall view of Revelation.  But argued this passage is about the time John received the Revelation being 42 months before September of 70 AD when Titus fully secured control of the City.  However this was an Anti-Paul website that teaches a lot of bad doctrine.

What's most important is that I have come to an understanding of the Image of The Beast that says the final Abomination of Desolation won't happen till after The Beast's mortal wound is healed.  Which in turn can't happen till after the Abyss has been unlocked is Revelation 9.  And that is why the Historicist view of II Thessalonians fails.

At the same time, I am now open to a Pre-Millenial Futurist view that does not require any future Temple Building.

But also, since I now think The Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple were originally Domes.  And the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque are both Domed buildings.  Is it possible one of them could be considered close enough?  (Perhaps likewise with the Christian Churches in Jerusalem that are Domed.)  The issue of where the Holy Place was in relation to those buildings I've discussed in the past and will again.

Long time readers of this Blog may recall that there not being enough time to rebuild The Temple was why I abandoned my 2018-2025 70th Week model (that came from the Suleiman the Magnificent theory).  Am I now willing to revive that?  Maybe, but I don't want to definitively predict anything.

I'm not saying for sure there will be no Third Temple.  But I'm saying i don't think it's quite as required as it used to be.

Was Paul not referring to a Temple Building, But somehting Spiritual?

It seem odd to most of us good Futurists that such a debate exists, but it's out there.

QUOTE

http://www.sonstoglory.com/ThirdTempleEzekielsMillennialTemple.htm Before beginning this study it is necessary to address a common teaching regarding a temple being built in Israel. Many Christian's teach and believe that the next temple to be built in Jerusalem Israel will be one in which "the man of sin" or "the Antichrist" will enter into and defile by declaring himself to be God. These beliefs are supported mainly from one verse in Second Thessalonians 2:4, which states that the man of sin "sits as God in the temple of God showing himself that he is God." There are two different Greek words that are translated as "temple" in English. One word "hieron" is used by Paul when referring to an actual building made with wood and stones. The other word "naos" is used when referring to the spiritual temple of God which refers to His people. The word "naos" is the one used in this 2 Thessalonians 2:4 verse, and therefore is NOT talking about a physical temple. Doug Fortune, in his article "Antichrist Revealed" writes:     Beginning with the Book of Acts, after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, through the Book of Revelation, the word naos is used ONLY referring to people as the temple not made with hands. When referring to the physical temple building the word hieron is used. Of course, throughout the Book of Revelation, the word naos is used, as that Book is the REVEALING of Jesus Christ, and He is revealed in the MIDST of the Lampstand, the CHURCH (Revelation 1:20). Why then is there so much confusion when 2 Thessalonians 2:4 speaks of the man of sin seated in the NAOS of God, “...which temple (naos) YE ARE...”(1Corinthians 3:17). Why are we looking for a man seated in a building yet to be built in the Middle-East, when we should be looking in the mirror? As the man of sin, the Adam nature is revealed and "the Lord Jesus will slay him with the breath of His mouth and bring him to an end by His appearing at His coming.” or “the brightness of His coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8) as some translations read.5 The New Covenant addresses first spiritual matters and secondarily natural matters (Likewise the Old Testament speaks first to natural things and second to spiritual things). Therefore, 2 Thessalonians 2:4 is NOT referring to an actual physical temple. Even if there is another "temple building" built in Jerusalem before Ezekiel's temple, it has nothing to do with the construction of Ezekiel's temple discussed in this study, because the Messiah Yahoshua (Jesus) will be responsible for building the Millennial Temple. Zechariah 6:12 and 13 is clear that the Messiah (and not unredeemed Jews) will build the Lord's temple: "Behold, the Man whose name is the Branch (a term for the Messiah)! From His place He shall branch out, And HE SHALL BUILD THE TEMPLE, Yes, He shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory, and sit and rule on His throne; So he shall be a priest on His throne, And the counsel of peace shall be between them both (both natural and spiritual governments - or kings and priests)." The apostle Paul speaks of mankind as God's temple often. A few examples include 1 Cor. 3:16, 1 Cor. 6:19, and Eph. 2:21. Now that we have established that Second Thessalonians 2:4 is referring to the "temple of mankind," rather than an actual physical temple in Jerusalem, we can interpret the rest of this verse:

First off, I obviously agree Ezekiel's Temple is the not the one the Man of Sin will violate, as do all Futurits/Premillenals , this was a pointless detour for the author's main focus.

Also this person doesn't even understand the Allegorical/Spiritual Temple Paul refers to in the verses cited. It's not Mankind it's The Church. And many would argue Ezekiel's Temple is the one Paul has in mind when he defined The Church as The Temple of God, which is also New Jerusalem. I have a study on the common misconceptions of what's talking about the Millennium and what's the New Heaven and New Earth.

But to suggest these verses tell us how to Interpret this Verse where Paul is talking about Eschatology is absurd. Both Thessalonian Epistle's talks on Eschatology are effectively an a further elaboration of Matthew 24's Olivite Discourse.

"When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"

The Reference to Daniel tells us to look at the Last verse of Chapter 9 and also Chapter 12 where we're told the Evil Act Antiochus Epiphanies committed will be repeated.

This is also supposed to be something Unmistakeable, something that clearly hasn't already happen therefore they need not worry that they've somehow missed the Second Coming. When you take such a vague defining of the verse your essentially allowing anything to be what the passage refers to. What they believe this refers to is

"The antichrist comes out from among us (the temple of God) just like Judas came out from among the disciples of Jesus, yet he was not manifested (made known) until the end of Jesus' ministry. Likewise, "the man of sin" who has been among us for the past 2,000 years just like Judas, will be made known (manifested) now at the end of this age in a more obvious manner. This Judas spirit, which is the selfishness in all of us, is being dealt with by God."

Yes, what a wonderfully chronologically helpful thing for Paul to reassure his readers with.

I think The Man-Child is The Church

I did a post on the subject of The Rapture of The Man-Child before.  But my thinking has changed since then.  First read this so you understand that all of this follows The Seventh Trumpet.

Back then I was focused on how The Man-Child could be both Christ and The Church, because The Church is the Body of Christ.  And that remains an important part of the argument.  But I've come to think it's placement in Revelation makes him, particularly in terms of his being "Caught Up", more about The Church.

The Greek term Harpatzo isn't used of the Ascension, it wouldn't be because Jesus ascended on His own, no one had to come down to get him.  But that same key word used in I Thessalonians 4, that is via it's Latin Translations the origin of the term Rapture, is used once and only once in Revelation, right here.

I'm aware that Harpatzo/Rapture/Caught Up is used of things not relevant to The Rapture debate.  My point here is that the alternative view of what The Man-Child's Rapture refers to is the one and only Ascension in The Bible where using that term would be inappropriate.  Harpatzo implies the person ascending isn't in control of their ascension, someone else is.  That's why the term enraptured comes from rapture.  Jesus was in full control of his Ascension, and is in full control of every other Biblical Ascension.

And also that the term could have accurately described some other events in Revelation, like 4:1 or the Ascension of the Witnesses.  But John used it only here.  Now in the first century that particular word Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4 may not have been a point of contention, but The Holy Spirit knew it would be and I think maybe was specific about how to use it in The Apocalypse.

I've seen it argued the Man-Child can't be the Church because he's Caught up to God's Throne.  Revelation 12 does NOT say the Man-Child sits on the Throne (which it probably would have if the Man-Child was Jesus), the terminology is consistent just with the Man-Child being in the Throne Room.  Read chapters 14 and 15.

Ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron is applied to presumably Jesus in Psalm 2, and again later in Revelation in chapter 19.  But in the context of reading through Revelation on it's own without knowledge of what's ahead, the promise to rule the nations with a Rod of Iron was applied to faithful believers in Revelation 2:27.

I recommend a study on my other blog where I point out how some of our casual Christian lingo is wrong.  We are "Born Again" at the Resurrection not when we are saved.  We are begotten again or conceived when we are Saved.  So if the concept of New Birth is linked to the Resurrection, and The Rapture we know happens when we are Resurrected.  Then it's quite interesting that The Man-Child is born and Raptured in the same verse.

Numerous passages outside Revelation speak of a woman travailing in child birth as an idiom of the signs of the the Second Coming.  But we never connect that to Revelation 12 because we're so used to this assumption that the Birth of The Man-Child there is referring to something that already happened at The First Advent.

Isaiah 66 also clearly defines The Man-Child as Zion/New Jerusalem.

As an individual our begetting happens when we're saved.  The Church as an entity was Begotten arguably you could say over the course of The Spring Feasts in 30 AD.  The Woman is Israel, we were conceived in Israel's Womb from the Bodily fluids of Jesus shed at The Cross.

Jesus is represented differently at different parts of Revelation, the Lamb, the Son of Man, ect.  The Church is the same situation.  We are definitely The Bride.  And I see the 144,000 as a specific group that sort of represents the whole at times.  They are on earth through The Trumpets, but on the Heavenly Zion in Revelation 14, and described with terms Paul linked to the Resurrection like First Fruits and Redeemed from the Earth.

Some insist The Church can never be symbolically masculine due to the Bride of Christ doctrine.  Well we can't be Jesus Body then now can we?  Paul even talks in Corinthians about our members being the members of Christ.  That's leaving aside that some people don't even agree with The Bride doctrine, and over time I've re-thought that myself.  Psalm 45 depicts The Messiah and his Bride as having children.

There were no chapter divisions in the original text.  Revelation 12 follows 11, this is still the aftermath of the Seventh Trumpet, where it says now is the time of The Dead.  I believe firmly that that Trumpet sounds on Yom Teruah.  The 70th Week will begin and end with Nisan.

Revelation 12's beginning could also be the Sign of the Son of Man that Jesus spoke of.  Or the Signs in the Sun, Moon and Stars from Luke 21.

And maybe that is why this is when Satan is finally kicked out of Heaven (Michael is the aggressor here).  It is when We are there fully Redeemed and brought there that God won't tolerate Satan's presence there any longer.

As far as the desire to link this to possibly Constellation alignments involving Virgo.  While the time of year that points to happens to agree with when I believe this will happen for many other reasons, I remain highly skeptical.  Ultimately I think this is something Supernatural, but it could be Supernatural and also involve Virgo.  I've posted on related conjectures before.  However I was mistaken when I said Virgo is completely not visible then. when the Sun is just starting to enter Virgo she remains partially visible at Dusk for a hour or so.

The Church as The Bride of Christ

There is a trend out there on The Internet of Christians seeking to reject the usual identity of The Church as The Bride of Christ.  Saying that term isn't in The Bible (The Trinity isn't either) and arguing that The Lamb's Wife is Israel and/or Jerusalem.  I feel the need to address this since New Jerusalem being The Church is important to doctrine I've build on this Blog.

First I need to address the suggestion that the Bride "making herself ready" contradicts the Doctrine of Grace if she's The Church.  Since I firmly believe in Justification by Faith Alone, that we're saved by Grace through Faith.  And also in Eternal Security.

I could point out how believers can lose their inheritance but not their Sonship (like the prodigal Son), and that some Church Age believers may get left out of The Wedding, but are still Saved.  But even that is unnecessary.

The statement in question about "making herself ready" in Revelation 19 is referring to her when she's already in Heaven.  This is after The Rapture.  It puts absolutely no burden on our Earthly walk, at all.

The argument is largely founded upon suggesting that we can't be Christ's Bride if we're His Body.  I addressed this once already on a different subject.  But I shall do so again in more detail.

Matthew 19:5-6

 "For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Husband and Wife are made one flesh.  The Lamb's Wife also being his Body fits perfectly.

The first Bride, Havvah/Eve, was made from a piece of Adam's flesh.  Likewise we are made new creatures in the Blood of Jesus shed on The Cross.  I believe part of the Reason Jesus' side had to be pierced by the Roman Spear was to fit him being The Last Adam.

The Church as The Body of Christ also overlaps with The Church being The Temple of God.  1 Corinthians 3:16, 1 Corinthians 6:19, and Ephesians 2:21.  Also referring to The Body of each individual believer as The Temple of God.  And in John 2 Jesus refers to His Body as The Temple.

New Jerusalem, which is The Lamb's Wife, is the final Temple in Revelation 21.  Don't be confused by the statement of there being No Temple, there is no Temple because The City is The Temple.  "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God."  Like the last verse of Ezekiel.

The message to Philadelphia confirms New Jerusalem is The Church.

In John chapter 3, John The Baptist defines himself as distinct from The Bride.  If The Bride was Israel he'd absolutely be a part of her.

Israel is The Wife of Yahweh in The Old Testament.  Married to him at Sinai.  They point this out as if it contradicts The Church rather then Israel being The New Testament Bride.  Israel is the Wife of God The Father and The Mother of The Son/The Messiah, as demonstrated in Revelation 12.  [Also I'm not a strict Dispensationalist anymore, The Church is grafted into Israel as Romans 9-11 clearly Teaches.]

Genesis 22-24 is a very typological part of Genesis.  Abraham represents The Father, Issac The Son, the Unnamed Servant is The Holy Spirit, Sarah is Israel and Rebecca is The Church.  Likewise in Ruth, Ruth is The Church and Naomi is Israel.

I shall again quote what I consider the best Rapture Passage of The Old Testament.  Joel 2:15-16

Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly: Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts: let the bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet.

The Bride is Raptured, Israel is not.

The Partial Rapture Theory

All of my previous posts addressing Rapture views I disagree with have been focused on the main three popular views, Pre-Trib, Post-Trib and Pre-Wrath.

The Partial Rapture Theory isn't really a matter of timing, it can overlap with any of the other views.  It is sometimes linked to an idea that more then one Rapture will occur and thus they might all be right.  Some people believing a from of this I know are mainly Mid-Trib in their timing, so I feel the need to make sure people know this isn't a view I agree with.

The Partial Rapture Theory is that not all of the Saved alive on Earth at the time are Raptured at the Rapture, or at least not the first Rapture.  Only those who are the most Obedient and Faithful.

My views on Soterology and Ecclesiology could be viewed as lending themselves to this view.  I believe firmly in Eternal Security, yet I disagree with Calvinists and others who say they believe in Eternal Security but then turn around and say "if you are really saved you won't ______" whatever their line is.

I believe that like the Prodigal Son a Believer can squander their Inheritance but will never lose their Sonship.  I recommend Chuck Missler's studies on Eternal Security, including Hebrews 6.  Though I disagree with him on a few verses concerning Predestination where he sounds like he unwittingly agrees with the Calvinist view, but those are minor.

When Jesus in Matthew refers to the "Outer Darkness" that's not Hell.  Revelation 21:25-27 tells us that not everyone living in the New Heaven and New Earth will be in New Jerusalem.  And that some won't be allowed to enter it.  That's the "Outer Darkness" Jesus was referring to (because the context was clearly describing saved individuals, only the Saved are his servants), being outside New Jerusalem.

So some people when responding to certain views on Rewards tie in a disapproval of any notions that all Christians aren't equal at the Bema Judgment.  I believe we should not be Judging each other during our life on Earth, but it's clear in Eternity there will be distinctions.

BUT, that differentiation happens at the Bema Seat Judgment, and thus after The Rapture.  So it does not exclude anyone from The Rapture.  We are during our life on this Earth all part of the Body of Christ regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.

Some who agree with my view that the 144,000 are part of The Church and that they are Raptured in Revelation 14, will add that only the 144,000 are Raptured.  As I've said in other posts on that subject, they are a specific group that represents the whole.

I've said before that not all saved are part of The Church.  A related question to that however is, are all saved during the Church Age part of The Church?  While we're alive, yes.  I believe we're all The Body of Christ.  But after the Bema Seat Judgment, I do think it's possible some of us will lose our opportunity to be the Bride of Christ.

The Ten Virgins Parable of Matthew 15:1-13 is one Bible passage that could be used to support a Partial Rapture.  Actually the way Partial Rapture supporters interpret this is kind of the natural conclusion of the way Pre-Tribbers use it.  (That the Five Virgins taken represent those who hold the Pre-Trib view, and others those who do not).  Problem is, what Jesus tells the Foolish Virgins "I know you not" is how other Eschatological passages from Jesus define the unsaved.  Yet Pre-Tribbers don't usually want to say they think your not saved if your not Pre-Trib, but that seems to be the implication of their attitude sometimes.

Pre-Tribbers often forget that parables are not always what they seem.

I don't think this Parable is about the timing of the Rapture, or that the difference between the groups has anything to do with their theory on it's timing being correct or not.  Christ's offer to be his Bride is extended to all Humanity, but only the Saved are prepared to be ready to accept it when he comes.  Because the Saved have the Light of the World in us, our Lamps won't go out.

The Letters to the Seven Churches can also be used by Partial Rapture theorists.  Mainly the messages to Thyatira and Philadelphia.  Where certain statements make it seem like the former is told they will go into the "Tribulation Period" and the latter they will not.

To Thyatira he says of "Jezebel" and those committing Whoredom with her "Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds."  Thing is, in my Great Tribulation study I show that it isn't a specific time period at all, it refers to all Persecution the Church has faced.

To Philadelphia he says "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."  This is often used against Post-Trib in general.  One Question is, if this is about the Rapture, does it being only in Philadelphia's message mean it applies only to Philadelphian Christians?  The Promise for the Believer parts of the other Letters seem to embody many things characteristic of all Believers, so no I don't think so.

But also it this really Rapture relevant?

This Verse doesn't use Wrath or Tribulatio, or Day of The LORD.  It says Hour of Temptation.  I'm reminded of how in the Lord's Prayer, we're instructed to pray that we are lead not into Temptation and delivered from Evil.  And in Matthew 24:24 Jesus says "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." The key complication is that it isn't possible.  I don't think this means we're immune to being tricked in general.  But once the Abomination of Desolation happens, things will be crystal clear to those with the Holy Spirit.

So neither of those two passages from the letters to the Churches I view definitively as Rapture relevant.

If The Church and Israel are the same, why does Jesus marry his mother?

I don't feel like making my own study on the usual replacement theology arguments, which revolve largely around Romans 9-11.  But I want to address this aspect of Revelation.

The Woman of Revelation 12:1 is clearly Israel, the Sun, Moon and 12 stars clearly draw on Joseph's dream from Genes 37:9.  And also various Old Testament Prophets speaking of Jerusalem as a woman travailing in childbirth.  So Israel is defined as The Mother of the Man-Child.

Now I mentioned this in one discussion and got "why would Jesus marry his own Body", as if the doctrine of The Church as the Body of Christ proves that we shouldn't be comparing this mystical marriage to the rules and regulations of a real marriage.

I simply responded by referencing Matthew 19:5-6

"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

So the Lamb's Wife also being his Body fits perfectly.

But a Man marrying his Mother, or anyone who had been married to his Father (Israel is the Wife of Yahweh, married to him at Sinai) violates the Incest restrictions of Leviticus 18:1-20 and Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 27.  And Paul alludes to that as still being wrong in 1 Corinthians 5.

The Types in The Hebrew Scriptures also supports there being two symbolic Women.  The Book of Ruth has Naomi and Israel and Ruth as The Church.  Genesis 22-24 has Sarah as Israel and Rebecca as The Church. 

The Rapture of The Man-Child

Revelation 12:5

"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

The symbols seen in the heavens in Revelation 12 is a symbolic summery of History.  The Man-Child is Jesus and his being "Caught up to God" is at first glance an allusion to The Ascension.

The phrase "caught up" is the exact same one in the Greek text Paul uses in 1 Thessalonians 4.  Chuck Missler argues that this could also be an allusion to The Rapture, that it's not just Christ being "Caught up" here but his Body, The Church.  So this one detail of the summery of history jumps us from the The Ascension in 30 A.D. to The Rapture.

Revelation 2:26-27 actually backs up that ruling the nations with a Rod of Iron refers to The Church as well as Jesus.

Chuck Missler is Pre-Trib, but I think The Rapture being alluded to here would suit Mid-Trib better.  Because verse 6 tells us that when The Woman (Israel) flees to her hiding place in the Wilderness, where she'll be protected for 1260 days is at this time.  That we know from Matthew 24 happens in the wake of The Abomination of Desolation.

Also the narrative of Revelation is between the two main places Mid-Tirbbers look to.  Chapters 11 and 14.

Mid-Trib is by no means dependent on this view, if it were I'd have addressed it earlier.  But it is an interesting observation.