Methodius of Olympus on The Man-Child being The Saints

I obviously don't agree with him entirely, my take on it is Semi-Dispensationalist with the Woman being Israel.  But it shows the idea of The Man-Child being Believers rather then Jesus has ancient even Pre-Nicene precedent.

This is from his Dialogue of The Ten Virgins, Thekla.  I'm copying chapters 5-8 for context but chapter 7 is the main argument.  And it makes arguments I didn't think of.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_VI/Methodius/Banquet_of_the_Ten_Virgins/Thekla

Chapter V.—The Woman Who Brings Forth, to Whom the Dragon is Opposed, the Church; Her Adornment and Grace.

The woman who appeared in heaven clothed with the sun, and crowned with twelve stars, and having the moon for her footstool, and being with child, and travailing in birth, is certainly, according to the accurate interpretation, our mother, O virgins, being a power by herself distinct from her children; whom the prophets, according to the aspect of their subjects, have called sometimes Jerusalem, sometimes a Bride, sometimes Mount Zion, and sometimes the Temple and Tabernacle of God. For she is the power which is desired to give light in the prophet, the Spirit crying to her: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine eyes round about, and see; all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.” It is the Church whose children shall come to her with all speed after the resurrection, running to her from all quarters. She rejoices receiving the light which never goes down, and clothed with the brightness of the Word as with a robe. For with what other more precious or honourable ornament was it becoming that the queen should be adorned, to be led as a Bride to the Lord, when she had received a garment of light, and therefore was called by the Father? Come, then, let us go forward in our discourse, and look upon this marvelous woman as upon virgins prepared for a marriage, pure and undefiled, perfect and radiating a permanent beauty, wanting nothing of the brightness of light; and instead of a dress, clothed with light itself; and instead of precious stones, her head adorned with shining stars. For instead of the clothing which we have, she had light; and for gold and brilliant stones, she had stars; but stars not such as those which are set in the invisible heaven, but better and more resplendent, so that those may rather be considered as their images and likenesses.

Chapter VI.—The Works of the Church, the Bringing Forth of Children in Baptism; The Moon in Baptism, the Full Moon of Christ’s Passion.

Now the statement that she stands upon the moon, as I consider, denotes the faith of those who are cleansed from corruption in the laver of regeneration, because the light of the moon has more resemblance to tepid water, and all moist substance is dependent upon her. The Church, then, stands upon our faith and adoption, under the figure of the moon, until the fulness of the nations come in, labouring and bringing forth natural men as spiritual men; for which reason too she is a mother. For just as a woman receiving the unformed seed of a man, within a certain time brings forth a perfect man, in the same way, one should say, does the Church conceive those who flee to the Word, and, forming them according to the likeness and form of Christ, after a certain time produce them as citizens of that blessed state. Whence it is necessary that she should stand upon the laver, bringing forth those who are washed in it. And in this way the power which she has in connection with the laver is called the moon, because the regenerate shine being renewed with a new ray, that is, a new light. Whence, also, they are by a descriptive term called newly-enlightened; the moon ever showing forth anew to them the spiritual full moon, namely, the period and the memorial of the passion, until the glory and the perfect light of the great day arise.

Chapter VII.—The Child of the Woman in the Apocalypse Not Christ, But the Faithful Who are Born in the Laver.

If any one, for there is no difficulty in speaking distinctly, should be vexed, and reply to what we have said: “But how, O virgins, can this explanation seem to you to be according to the mind of Scripture, when the Apocalypse plainly defines that the Church brings forth a male, while you teach that her labour-pains have their fulfilment in those who are washed in the laver?” We will answer, But, O faultfinder, not even to you will it be possible to show that Christ Himself is the one who is born. For long before the Apocalypse, the mystery of the Incarnation of the Word was fulfilled. And John speaks concerning things present and things to come. But Christ, long ago conceived, was not caught up to the throne of God when He was brought forth, from fear of the serpent injuring Him. But for this was He begotten, and Himself came down from the throne of the Father, that He should remain and subdue the dragon who made an assault upon the flesh. So that you also must confess that the Church labours and gives birth to those who are baptized. As the spirit says somewhere in Isaiah: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man-child. Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.” From whom did he flee? Surely from the dragon, that the spiritual Zion might bear a masculine people, who should come back from the passions and weakness of women to the unity of the Lord, and grow strong in manly virtue.

Chapter VIII.—The Faithful in Baptism Males, Configured to Christ; The Saints Themselves Christs.

Let us then go over the ground again from the beginning, until we come in course to the end, explaining what we have said. Consider if the passage seems to you to be explained to your mind. For I think that the Church is here said to give birth to a male; since the enlightened receive the features, and the image, and the manliness of Christ, the likeness of the form of the Word being stamped upon them, and begotten in them by a true knowledge and faith, so that in each one Christ is spiritually born. And, therefore, the Church swells and travails in birth until Christ is formed in us, so that each of the saints, by partaking of Christ, has been born a Christ. According to which meaning it is said in a certain scripture, “Touch not mine anointed,and do my prophets no harm,” as though those who were baptized into Christ had been made Christs by communication of the Spirit, the Church contributing here their clearness and transformation into the image of the Word. And Paul confirms this, teaching it plainly, where he says: “For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith.” For it is necessary that the word of truth should be imprinted and stamped upon the souls of the regenerate.

I have a number of things I wanna post here before April is over, so brace yourself.

Who is The Bride of Christ?

I did a post defending The Church as the Bride of Christ once.  My views on a number of things have changed since then, mainly my becoming less Dispensational.  I now believe The Church is grafted into Israel.  Though I do still believe there are probably some unique promises for Church Age believers.

So while on the one hand I want to talk in this post about how I'm more open to rethinking how we think about the Bride of Christ then I was then.  I first want to talk about how the main people you'll find on a google search for "The Church is not the Bride of Christ", are absolute Dispensationists as much as Chuck Missler is, just changing which Covenant people they say is The Bride.  And in so doing say things that bug me even more now then they did back then.

Jerusalem is the Lamb's Wife quite clearly in Revelation 21.  And to them the word Jerusalem can't possibly apply to The Church.  One went all in on this "Revelation is about Israel not The Church" idea saying even the Seven Churches are about Israel not the Church.  I think it's absurd to say something so important to the New Testament would be totally absent from the closing book of The Bible.

I could point out to them how the message to Philadelphia and the description of New Jerusalem clearly tie themselves to how Paul taught his The Church is God's Temple doctrine, via the Twelve Disciples as Pillars.  Or that Jesus told the Twelve Disciples at the Last Supper they would rule the Twelve Tribes.  They simply wouldn't care.

But now to how I'm more open.

The thing I've noticed is that Psalm 45, generally agreed to be a Messianic Psalm, has The Messiah and His Wife and their Children, as distinct entities.  Isaiah 53 also says the Suffering Servant will have Seed.  These do not mean Jesus will reproduce biologically, they are about John 1 teaching how Jesus gave us the ability to become Sons of God.  And probably also about The Man-Child being The Church. 

In Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34 Jesus refers to His Disciples as the Children of the Bridegroom or Bridechamber.  Some Translations try to make this say servants, but the Greek text of the Textus Receptus says children making the KJV right here.  What John The Baptist says in John 3:29 can be taken in context as saying the former disciples of John becoming Disciples of Jesus are The Bride, but I think that's an oversimplification, he doesn't directly say that.

I think it is believers as the Temple of God/Body of Christ that include The Bride and the Children together.  My post about The Vail of The Temple suggests good reason to see The Bride and Groom as the Holy of Holies/Holy Place, The Vail torn means they are no longer separate.  The Children may then equate to the Inner Court.  Originally only Aaronic Priests could enter it, but now all believers are Priests.  There are no separate courts for Gentiles or Women as Galatians 3 shows.  Ephesian 2:14 also says the Wall of partition has been torn down.

I believe Israel is the Woman of Revelation 12, I've argued that the Woman of Revelation 12 and 17 possibly are the same Woman, and returned to that in my recent Eden and Sinai post.[but that argument is now corrected by Eden may have been in Yemen].  The one thing that I was uncomfortable with about that is the implication of no happy ending for Israel.

Unless we conclude that this is also the same Woman who becomes the Bride in Chapter 19 and the Lamb's Wife in Chapter 21.  It makes sense given Paul's discussion in Romans of the divorce and Re-Marriage of Israel.  It's not explicitly stated they are the same because God promised He "will remember their Sins no more", Hebrews 8:12 and 10:17.  Remember in Revelation 18 God calls His People out of Babylon.

In fact that Greek word translated Bride in Revelation 19 is the exact same word used for Woman in chapter 12 and 17.  A word that more specifically means Bride isn't used till chapter 21. And likewise the word for Wife is usually the same word translated Woman.

It might be Isaiah 62 equates to verses 7-9 of Revelation 19, and then Isaiah 63 equates to verses 11-16.

Update: Types

Chuck Missler likes to back up his dispensationalist view of The Bride of Christ doctrine by talking about a theme of  "Gentile Brides" in the Old Testament.  I think he said there are at least 7 once.  But that whole thing is built on sand, having only really Ruth to go on.

Havvah/Eve was made from Adam's flesh, so you can't call that a marriage between separate Blood Lines.

With Rebecca in Genesis 24, the whole point was Abraham sent his servant to get a Wife for Isaac from the descendants of his brother.  Then Jacob's wives came from that same family.

Tamar was not a Canaanite, it was the unnamed wife of Judah who was clearly identified as one.

Rahab the Harlot is not depicted as marrying anyone in the Hebrew Bible, and I've shown that the Recab of Matthew's Genealogy cannot be referring to her.

Of the Wives of David, the only three who have any particular narratives about them are all clearly Israelites. Bathsheba even came from the same Tribe, Judah, as the granddaughter of Athitophel, though her first Husband was a Gentile.  Abigail was from Carmel but had been married to a Calebite.  And Michal was a princess of Benjamin, perhaps making her the most likely to be a type of the New Jerusalem.  Or perhaps Michal is Old Jerusalem and Bethsheba is New Jerusalem.

Esther also was a Benjamite, in that scenario it's the groom who was a gentile.

Solomon's marriages to foreigners are not depicted positively.  And my studies of the Song of Solomon have firmly lead me to conclude that Shulamith was a granddaughter of Solomon.

Nor does Psalm 45 in anyway make it's Bride a Gentile, despite how some seek to abuse the text to make it about the Queen of Sheba.  The "Queen in Gold of Ophir" verse is simply about her wearing expensive imported clothes, because Solomon got his Gold from Ophir.  What's interesting is that Gentile women attend the Wedding.  Her being told to forget her own people and her father's house use "Am" not "Goyi" for people, it could be used in the sense of being from a different Tribe of Israel.  Again reflecting how in Deuteronomy 33 the Beloved is of Benjamin.  But also the most significant verse to use "Am" is Genesis 48:19 of Manasseh.

So getting back to Ruth, the thing about her is she's not the only Wife depicted in the story.  Naomi (Who Chuck Missler says represents Israel) is also a Widow, and her husband's name makes him a possible type of the King, Elimelech.  The narrative point in this Book is about Ruth being a gentile who becomes an Israelite via Faith in Israel's God, not about a Gentile Bride being separate from Israel.

So don't let anything I said above make you think I'm against Mixed Marriages, I have a post on my other Blog defending them.

Update April 16th 2018: Methosius of Olympus.

 Methodius of Olympus a Pre-Nicene Church Father taught that The Woman of Revelation 12 is The Church and The Man-Child the Saints. That is a confusing explanation, but I think a product of being at least partly aware of the truths I just laid out above but being blinded by the Anti-Semitism the Early Church had already developed.

Of course that could be explained by language like in Ezekiel 16, where Judah, Samaria and Sodom are refereed to as well as their "daughters", referring to the people of the City as the City's children.

Methodius's writings we don't have in full.  This looks to me like evidence he was a Pre-Nicene father who wasn't Post-Trib since I don't see how making the Man-Child the Saints rather then Jesus can be made compatible with Post-Trib.  But I'm not gonna bet on that because playing games with the chronology of Revelation is what Post-Tribbers do.  (I'm also well aware he wouldn't have used terminology like Post-Trib).

So Methodius might have provided a way to make distinguishing the Bride from the Children of the Bride not even Semi-Dispensational.  But to me that way of looking at it would still have to be Mid-Trib, since it has the Church still existing on Earth after the Rapture.  However there are other pieces of the puzzle that wouldn't quite fit.

Update May 14th 2018: Paul's views on the matter.

All three passages that can be cited as sounding like they're describing The Church or Christians as The Bride rather then the Children are from Paul.

Now I'm someone who wants to refute the notion that Paul was in conflict with the rest of the New Testament, I have posts already dedicated to that issue.  But on this I must admit to being currently a little stumped.

Romans 7 is totally misunderstood however, that marriage related Law is what Paul singled out because he wanted to demonstrate that you are no longer under the Law at Death, and now we are Dead to the Law.  At best it actually makes Believers the Husband not the Wife.  Because we Die in Christ at Baptism.

However Ephesians 5:21-33 and 2 Corinthians 11 do seem to be making The Church the Bride of Christ.

Whether or not those passages can be reinterpreted differently.  Paul is one witness, I have multiple witnesses above on The Church being the Children of the Bridegroom.

Update August 2018: I've contemplated these Paul passages some more.

Ephesian 5 is not really doctrinally calling anyone a Bride or Bridegroom, just telling Husbands to love their wives like Jesus loves them.

2 Corinthians 11:2 I think may have some translation issues.  First of all the word translated "espoused" is not the same Greek word that refers to betrothal elsewhere like when talking about Mary and Joseph, but a form of the same Greek root that the word "harmony" comes from.  Looking at other usage of related words "joined" may be a better translation.

The word for "Husband" Andri, can also just mean an adult male, no word for wife or bride is used.

Some things about the word order are not what I expected either.  The Young's Literal Translation reads.

for I am zealous for you with zeal of God, for I did betroth you to one husband, a pure virgin, to present to Christ,

Which is interesting, but I'm not sure how accurate it is either given the Greek word order.  For one thing, it might be possible it's actually the Andri who's being called a pure virgin.

Basically, it could be this verse is really more about the Body of Christ Doctrine then the Bride of Christ.

September 23 2017 is apporaching.

Awhile ago I talked about why I don't think the alignment involving Virgo, Leo and 4 of the Planets is significant.  But now the time for it is approaching I better remind people.

Also recently was this AnswerInGenesis Article on it.

That somewhat overlaps with my refuting the September 11th 3 BC Birth of Jesus theory.

Rob Skiba has kinda gone off the deep end, in a recent radio show saying Revelation 12 can only be about either something astronomical or some sort of cloned rebirth of Jesus who immediately dies.

I feel like I have firmly Biblically proven that The Woman is Israel, and The Man-Child is The Church, especially thanks to Isaiah 66.

For those who still think The Church can only be represented by a woman, I recommend this Song of Solomon post of mine.

The only thing Biblically significant about this September is that as it often does the Month of Tishri and thus the Fall Feasts will begin.

Is The White Horseman of Revelation 19 someone other than Jesus?

I realize this suggestion is going to be very controversial.  There is a phrase we think of as a Title of Christ mainly because of it's usage in this passage, and yet under that assumption has inspired the title of two Hollywood films.  "King of Kings and Lord of Lords".  That title is also clearly applied to The Lamb in Revelation 17:14.  But in Revelation 19 the person being described has that name written on their vesture and thigh, making their relation to that name perhaps more complicated.

Plus that term is secular in origin, being a term for an "emperor" a King who rules other Kings. And as such can apply to David and Solomon.

First of all this does not change that I think The Arnion (Lamb in the KJV) mentioned as getting married just before this is Jesus.

Second of all regardless of if this is Jesus or not, this is not the Parusia, I've already noted the significance of how that word does not appear in this passage and it has nothing in common with the passages that define the Parusia.  The defining traits of the Parusia occurred in chapters 11-14.

In Revelation 19:12 we read "and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."  I can understand why that sounds like it could be a title of Jesus at first.  But in Revelation 2:17 that is a promise Jesus makes to faithful Church believers.  "To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it."  Revelation 3:12 also speaks of Faithful Believers having a New Name written on them.

Another promise to the Faithful in the messages to the Seven Churches is also used here.  The promise to rule with a Rod of Iron, in 2:27 and 19:15.  That is also said of The Man-Child in 12:5.  I've already argued strongly that The Man-Child is The Church citing 2:27 (But the biggest Proof Text of that is Isaiah 65), yet people retort that Revelation 19 makes that clearly of Jesus.  

The only appearance of this phrase outside Revelation is Psalm 2.  Chuck Missler likes to argue Psalm 2 is a dialogue between the Trinity, but an argument can also be made that Psalm 2 is about the same thing as Psalm 8, God's promised Dominion of The Earth to the faithful of mankind.  Also it's a Davidic Psalm and so Yahuah's Anointed here could be David.  David anticipates some promises generally unique to New Testament believers, like being promised The Holy Spirit wouldn't leave him.

But, the term "Faithful and True" is used only three times in all of Scripture, all of them in Revelation.  Revelation 19:11 is the second of them.  The third is at the end not being used of a personage.  And Revelation 3:14 is clearly using it as a Title of Christ.

As I was pondering these conflicting clues, I noticed something in verse 11 of chapter 19.  The Horse itself is described as a "him".  

"And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war."

So I started wondering, is it possible that verses 12-16 are describing The Horse rather than The Rider?  And then there is 19:11’s parallel to 6:2, and how that White Horseman is viewed as possibly a False Christ.  Could it be chapter 6 is the Church and/or Israel being lead astray by a False Messiah, and then 19 is the true Messiah back in control?

Isaiah 63 is a passage often taken as being the main Hebrew Bible counterpart to this part of Revelation 19.  In Isaiah 63:13, Israel is symbolically described as a Horse.  Zechariah 10:3 repeats this analogy in a more positive context, representing Judah as Yahuah's goodly Horse.  And I should note that Rabbinic Jews who accept the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine might view Isaiah 63 as about Messiah Ben-Joseph rather than Ben-David.

Certain things are applicable potentially to both Jesus and Faithful Believers.  Being called “Faithful and True” could work as one of those.  As well as the imagery of a Two Edged Sword coming out of His Mouth, referencing the idea of the Word of God as the Sword of the Spirit from Ephesians 6.  And as I’ve considered that I’m maybe leaving the argument that the Rider is Jesus and the Horse the Church.

Many assume it’s the armies following in 19:14 that are Believers.  But Rob Skiba believes those are the Angels and maybe I should now consider him more right on that then I used to (but still not how he ties that into his Flat Earth arguments).  But also this may tie into how Believers will have different classes based on Rewards.

Maybe the Rider is the most Faithful of the Church and the Horse are those who lacked rewards, or Old Testament believers?

I’m not sure entirely what to make of these observations.  

But it has the potential to totally destroy Post-Trib, as even if a version of Post-Trib could be formed that interprets Revelation chronologically, it is dependent on the assumption that Revelation 19 clearly places a Return of Jesus after the Bowls of God’s Wrath.  I believe The Second Coming already happened before the Bowls were poured out.

And again on my Man-Child argument, this removes the only solid counter argument and seals the deal on The Man-Child being The Church.

Update March 4th 2017:

One more layer I could add here is how The Hebrew Bible uses Messiah meaning Anointed One, translated Christ in Greek, of more then just The Messiah.  It's used of Kings, Priests and Prophets, and sometimes seemingly refers to Believers as God's Anointed.

The New Testament is generally assumed to have phased that out (though Believers being called Christians could reflect it).  But Revelation is again often viewed as more Old Testament in style.  Twice the word Christ appears in Revelation 20, in verses 4 and 6, neither uses the Greek definite article before the word.  How the KJV translated verse 6 leaves out the word "his".  It should read "of God and of His Christ".

Remember that David is refereed to as a Messiah.  And that Ezekiel 34 and 37 refers to the resurrected David ruling as a Nasi during The Millennium.  (From that comes debates about if this is the same Nasi refereed to in Ezekiel 40-48.)  Zechariah possibly calls the Horse Judah, David's Tribe.

Maybe I'm reading too much into that.  But it's not a question I feel we can ignore.

Update November 8th 2018: Revelation 19:14 has the armies following the Rider dressed the same as The Bride in Verse 8.  So maybe the Horseman is the New Testament Church and the armies Old Testament Israel? 
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2018/08/maybe-wedding-feast-isnt-in-heaven-like.html

Another Man-Child post

When I first made this post, it did not have the reference to Isaiah 66 that is currently in it.

I was already pretty convinced of this theory without the help of Isaiah 66.  Then I was rereading it lately and I noticed what had completely flew by me before, that it references the Man-Child.  And the context clearly makes it New Jerusalem/Zion and it's Population.

Verses 6-11

A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple, a voice of Yahuah that rendereth recompense to his enemies.  Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child.

 Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.

 Shall I bring to the birth, and not cause to bring forth? saith Yahuah: shall I cause to bring forth, and shut the womb? saith thy God.  Rejoice ye with Jerusalem, and be glad with her, all ye that love her: rejoice for joy with her, all ye that mourn for her: That ye may suck, and be satisfied with the breasts of her consolations; that ye may milk out, and be delighted with the abundance of her glory.

Wonderful smoking gun proof of a Mid-Way point Rapture.

Is The Bride of Christ also his Sister?

I realize one thing that may make the argument I have made for The Man Child in Revelation 12 being The Church uncomfortable to some people is how it kind of makes Christ and his Bride siblings, both having the same spiritual mother (Israel, the Woman of Revelation 12) and spiritual father, God The Father.

I have used incestuous implications against other interpretations of the Bride of Christ, but those are against making The Bride his Mother.  Sibling incest is a different matter.

Strictly speaking no Incest restrictions existed before the time of Moses, they became needed because of genetic deterioration.  But while descendant-ancestor incest was painted negatively in the situation with Lot and his daughters, Abraham was in fact married to his half-sister Sarah.

Not to mention, Eve/Havvah would have been genetically Adam's twin.

The Song of Solomon is popularly interpreted by Christians as having a typological application to Christ and The Church.

I'm all for that, but I'm against using that as an excuse to render it irrelevant to Sexual Morality.  Clearly the only book of The Bible that actually deals with Sex in detail should be relevant to the issue.  But it's positive depictions of clearly non reproductive sex acts (before the marriage has actually happened) is very uncomfortable for the Prudes who base their Sexual Morality on Plato more then God's Word.

At any-rate back to the topic.  If it is applicable to Christ and The Church, then it's notable that the couple in this book do poetically refer to each other as brother and sister, in chapters 4 and 5, and 8:1.

Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God, but all of us believers are his children by Adoption.

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.

Latin Vulgate translation of Revelation 12:5

Et peperit filium masculum, qui recturus erat omnes gentes in virga ferrea: et raptus est filius ejus ad Deum, et ad thronum ejus,

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.