(2) There are two accusatives in the verse. I understand the
article TO before the infinitive to be anaphoric. The
antecedent is often explained to be EN MORFH THEOU HUPARXWN,
but what about the view that HARPAGMON is both the object of
the clause and the antecedent of TO EINAI ISA THEW,and the
infinitive thus being an apposition to HARPAGMOS? (Jesus did
not consider HARPAGMOS (that is) to be equal with God.) Are
there any decisive grammatical or syntactical arguments
against this view?
Regards
Rolf