I have been studying Phil. 2 lately, and have 2 bones to pick with Wright on his exegesis of 2:6. The first is his interpretation of HARPAGMON as passive “prize” instead of active “robbery,” The second is his reason for equating “form of God” with “to be equal with God,” which he does on the unwarranted basis that Paul used an anaphoric grammatical relationship (which in such case is assumed but invisible) to equate them.
Paul Hughes
I have been studying Phil. 2 lately, and have 2 bones to pick with Wright on his exegesis of 2:6. The first is his interpretation of HARPAGMON as passive “prize” instead of active “robbery,” The second is his reason for equating “form of God” with “to be equal with God,” which he does on the unwarranted basis that Paul used an anaphoric grammatical relationship (which in such case is assumed but invisible) to equate them.