Hello Sarah:
OW! why would they put in the word earlier? It does not make any sense!
You know, it is rather SHOCKING that they would just add that word in there when it's not in the Greek text! But getting past that shock, I'm pretty sure their mindset was that Paul was not aspiring to the general resurrection but to what the Bible calls the "better resurrection" which is the "earlier resurrection" based on some other texts that express that preference, the earlier resurrection over the later one:
HEBREWS 11: 35 Women received their dead by resurrection; but other [men] were tortured because they would not accept release by some ransom, in order that they might attain a better resurrection.
Here is where they must be reflecting. The better resurrection is the "earlier" or "first" resurrection. Problem is, they are not supposed to be editorializing the Bible itself. They could have made a footnote if they wanted to here and noted "Paul was talking about the earlier resurrection and gave this scripture cross-references. In fact, they do give the cross-references for the earlier resurrection. But still it would have been better to explain the confusion than to insert something that wasn't there.
As it is now, apparently Paul was not speaking of the first resurrection versus the second resurrection specifically, but the concept of the spiritual resurrection to eternal life that every human symbolically goes through, being considered already dead because of the sins of Adam. That is, living people are actually said to still be dead and not "come to life" until they are approved of everlasting life. That was the reference, I believe, that is here and thus Paul would not have distinguished any "earlier" resurrection for this reference. He's talking about something else.
Another indicator that Paul is not referencing the liter resurrection, either the early one or the later one, is that Paul was never to die. There were two groups of Christians in Jesus day. Those who would die and have to be resurrected at the second coming and some who would never die at all but would SURVIVE UNTIL THE LORD'S DAY and then meet up with those who had to be resurrected. Paul includes himself with those who would be of the "living" class who would never die at 1 Thess 4:15:
1 Thess 4: 15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord.
See? So why, if Paul knew he would never die, be speaking of the resurrection? It would not make sense for him to speak of the first resurrection, because he is clearly not in that group. But if Paul was speaking in terms of the general spiritual resurrection of mankind, in relation to being resurrected from the sins of Adam to eternal life, then that would explain the reference here and why he would specifically not make a distinction for any "early" resurrection. That is, Paul specifically would not wish for the "early" resurrection because that was only necessary for those who would die. So "early" simply isn't expository here, it's absolutely incorrect!
But what else have we all begun to expect from the WTS and the GB who are now in total darkness?
Those handling the sacred word were told not to change one little thing, but they chose "sacrifice" or "obedience." An old, old mistake when it comes with dealing with Jehovah. It's like God's law about the Ark of the Covenant that said no human hands were to touch it. Yet when it was about to fall someone reached out to try and steady it and guess what? He died instantly! I'm sure he had good intentions, but "obedience is better than sacrifice" always.
The WTS in turn likewise thought they are making a great sacrifice of honor by inserting "Jehovah" into places in the NT. But turns out they are incompetent as to determining when "Lord" means Jesus or "Lord" means Jehovah, since both go by that title. If they get some of these references wrong, then they actually distort God's word! So what good is their sacrifice? However, had they been OBEDIENT and not changed anything in the Bible itself, just stuck to commentary, which they could change later, then they wouldn't be in this fix. That's why the title of MAN OF LAWLESSNESS so aptly fits them. They ignore one law after another thinking they are improving things when they are simply making what is holy, unholy.
Now they are in a big fix! They heads are on the chopping block along with Babylon the Great and Christendom! Further, they are in spiritual darkness and their "sins" are amassing up to the heavens as we speak! This is just another said example, unfortunately.
Oh, well! They brought it upon themselves. I'm soooo glad I'm free of the "Faithful and Discreet Slave God" spell most "true witnesses" are under. They are in for a wake-up call.
JC
