In a web article examining NT Wright’s arguments regarding Philippians 2:6, Dennis Burk writes, “If harpagmov be understood according to the above analysis, then Christ is said not to have snatched at or grasped for equality with God. Though he was himself true deity existing in the form of God , he did not try to grasp for this other aspect which he himself did not possess—namely, equality with God . On the contrary, Christ emptied himself. This emptying consisted in taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men (v. 7). Therefore, the contrast between verses six and seven is made very clear. Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, did not try to snatch at an equality with God which properly belongs only to the first Person of the Trinity. On the contrary, Christ embraced those duties which were appointed for the second Person— taking the form of a servant and being made in the likeness of men . In this way, Christ did not attempt to usurp the peculiar role of the first Person of the Trinity, but in submission he joyfully embraced his own in the incarnation.” He later defines this as “functional equality” with the Father.

The phrasing is odd here: How can “equality with God” be a property of the Father? “Equality with” implies at least two. But the exegetical point is an interesting one, namely, that the Son refuses to seek the Father’s role and position and instead obediently accepts the Father’s commission to take the form of a servant and humble Himself in death.