Rebellion

Usually at the heart of any controversy over the interpretation of a passage of scripture is the amount of attention the interpreter pays to the cultural aspects surrounding the writer of the passage. It is no different with 2nd Thessalonians 2.1-12. If one pays no attention to the cultural aspects of the Macedonian people in the middle of the 1st century AD, then one feels free to view various portions of the Bible that read similarly as parts of a consistent whole. On the other end of the spectrum is the one who feels that different regions and different time periods make different portions of the Bible dysjunct from each other.

One of the terms used in this 12-verse stretch of the New Testament is "a rebellion." If the Bible is seen as a seamless whole, then one could say that "a rebellion" is mentioned in Daniel 7, Matthew 24, and Revelation 13. The 3 references must be speaking about the same event. If the Bible is seen as having different parts that might or might not relate to each other, then one could say that Macedonia is not Judea and that 42 AD is not 500 BC (or 180 BC depending on when Daniel might have been written) so the rebellions refer to different events and different groups of people.

One aspect of Paul's message that seems to stand out in both Acts and the two Thessalonian letters is the persecution that Paul receives at the hands of the Jews during his "2nd missionary journey." They were relentless in opposing his message. Easily, one could see that Paul could have included that treatment in the "rebellion" that happened to him. Also, the Roman authorities didn't do much to stop the Jewish rough treatment. In fact, they added to it. They had him in prison in Philippi, made Jason put up bond money in Thessalonica, and did nothing to quell animosity in Berea. They also thought Christianity was an atheistic superstition. One could call that "a rebellion" against the message of Jesus.

Whatever Paul meant by it, he had known to expect it because he reminds the Thessalonian people that he had mentioned this rebellion during his 3-week stay with them. And whatever Paul meant by it, talk of the Day of the Lord started the discussion of it. It almost seems like Paul is saying that God wouldn't have people to punish on the Day of the Lord unless enough time had passed for people to have a chance to reject the teaching of Jesus. Given enough time, people would have that opportunity. Truly, within 10 years of Paul's entering Thessalonica both Jews and Romans had had plenty of opportunity to hear the message of Jesus and make a decision about it.

As the Roman world circa 50 AD, so America—plenty of opportunity to make a decision about the message of Jesus.