J.C. O'Neill and Harpagmos (Philippians 2:6)--A Brief Note

Dear readers, I recommend the following article by J.C. O'Neill, which can be found in the Harvard Theological Review 81.4 (1988): 445-449.

The first paragraph states: "It has been held that R.W. Hoover's article on hARPAGMOS in Phil. 2:6 has 'undercut at a stroke' all contrary views, and that 'no one has ventured to challenge him on philological grounds.' I am afraid Hoover's views, for all the skill and knowledge he brought to bear on a complicated set of philological phenomena, are wide open to challenge. I doubt if he really did settle the meaning of hARPAGMOS in Phil. 2:6."

O'Neill produces an interesting read.

However, compare https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/%E1%BC%81%CF%81%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B3%CE%BC%CF%8C%CF%82-Revisited%3A-A-Philological-Reexamination-of-Martin/0e0bb59438ab31b9ce7176a27e22cdd8951c3863

The debate goes on, but regardless of one's Christology, I still have a difficult time believing that harpagmos is used passively in Phil. 2:6.

See https://brill.com/view/journals/bi/25/3/article-p342_4.xml

Even F.F. Bruce (an Evangelical scholar) tried to make a case for understanding harpagmos actively rather than passively.