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.
Another MASTERPIECE: John MacArthur’s Strange Fire, reviewed by Craig S. Keener While offering some very needed points, John MacArthur’s Strange Fire unfortunately extrapolates from…
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.