Philippians 2:6-11 has been at the center of Pauline scholarship for a long time. The passage is called the Kenosis hymn, since it praises Jesus’ emptying himself for the sake of others. While it was Ralph Martin’s view that stood out as the most popular among scholars, N. T. Wright challenged him on the basis of Hoover’s linguistic analysis of the term harpagmos. However, many scholars then published their articles, criticizing Wright in various ways. They claim that harpagmos does not necessarily mean what Jesus had already possessed before his kenosis, that the articular infinitive is not anaphoric, and that God’s form cannot be a synonym for God’s glory or nature. In this article, I will explore the key points of Wright and Hoover, and then, examine other scholars’ criticism of them. In light of their challenge against Wright and Hoover, the author will then reexamine the kenosis hymn in Philippians 2:6-11, and question their view that the equality with God was what Jesus possessed in heaven before his incarnation. The author argues that the equality with God is what God offered to Jesus at his exaltation as a compensation for his humbleness. While Jesus existed in the form of God before his incarnation, namely, in the divine status in heaven, he was not equal to God in every aspect of his status since he then and there was not called the Lord of the universe yet. According to the author’s analysis of the Kenosis hymn, the equality with God consists of the possession of God’s name the “Lord” and his cosmic lordship over those who are in heaven, on earth and under the earth. According to the overall structure of the hymn, it seems to be true that Jesus did not possess this equality with God before his incarnation. It is only after his death and resurrection that Jesus was exalted as Lord, and was bestowed the cosmic lordship. The name Lord, which was originally God’s name, and the cosmic lordship, which belonged to God only, now become status markers for the exalted Jesus. And this exaltation of Jesus became true as a result of God’s reward for his obedience and humbleness. The author knows that he does not have the last word for this complicated hymn of Philippians 2:6-11, but it is his hope that this article will help scholars move forward in their analysis of the Philippian hymn beyond what Wright and Hoover have argued.