You raise a perfectly good point. Interestingly, the NIV translates it the same as you, and the context is clear in any event. The "him" in that passage is David. So, if the author was making a new point for his "finally" then I agree with you that he/she is wrong. However, if he/she was following up from two paragraphs earlier in describing the inheritance and authority aspect of "firstborn", i.e. "The first-born possessed the inheritance and leadership." then he/she might deserve a pass because the example was of "firstborn" generally, not of Christ specifically. It wasn't written well in either case.
FK: I suppose I would see Him having the ability to sin as being a "confusion" in His united natures.
Hardly. Sinlessness is "natural" only to God, so a human who cannot sin is not really, human is he?
It depends on how we define "human". I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.
It appears that Christ's divine inability to sin was "leaking" into his humanity, making it impossible for him to sin which can only suggest that his will was not free.
Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will). That plays out clearly when He asks to have the cup taken away. So really the concept of a completely unencumbered free will is not present in Christ on earth.
Since men sin it means they have free will which is not always in harmony with God's will.
Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)
Okay, but that is not based on evidence. Evidence suggests otherwise.
I don't see anything unreasonable in taking the phrase "exact representation" to mean having the same nature. The author actually notes that it is "more than a representation".
My point is that radiance is not the object that radiates, nor does it have the same nature or essence as the object that radiates. For example, our bodies radiate heat. That heat is not "human." It is heat that radiates from human beings, but that doesn't make the heat human by nature.
It depends on how we define "human".
That sounds positively Clintonian. :)
I wouldn't limit it to our born natures. Our natures are changed by God once during life for the saved, and then again before entering Heaven finally. Once the saved finally enter Heaven are they no longer "human"? I would say no, they are still human, but changed.
FK, first human nature is created. Not even God can change that. Second, the nature of all living things, not only human, is that they die. No exceptions. Whether you believe you are "saved" or not is irrelevant. Even the "saved" must die. What happens after that is speculation.
Christ says over and over again that He came to do the will of the Father (as opposed to His or anyone else's will).
And therefore he is not like Adam.
Well, what is "God's will" can be a very complicated subject, as we all remember. :)
No, it seems rather certain. God's will is not what we do when we sin (by definition). If we know what constitutes sin (as everyone claims they do), then we also know that God's will is just the opposite of it! :)