Yes OK, but you seem to have jumped in Philippians 2:6 to seeing Caesar not Jesus as its primary referent.

I really need a break from this site; could people not post anything provocative for a few days so I can begin a painless detox?

P.S. I guess since ‘violently seize hold of’ is an unlikely association with Jesus’s view of his rights as co-equal with God, the word ‘exploit’ (or ‘take advantage of’/Wright) might have seemed a better interpretation. Or maybe the idea is that if Jesus had not been prepared to give up his rights, he would have merited the criticism which ‘grasp’, or ‘seize hold of’ conveys, and would have demonstrated the abuse of power, or lack of servant heart and self-denial which lie at the heart of an anti-christ attitude to power. That Jesus acted the way he did was consistent with the self-denying love which had always been at the heart of the trinity, and became its supreme expression.