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.
And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accompl…
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.