“Did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped” can mean Jesus didn’t reach for an equality he lacked, not that he possessed and set it aside. Some lexical studies support that reading.

The lexical debate is real. Roy Hoover’s influential study argued that harpagmos in this construction means something to be exploited, which implies possession: Jesus had equality and did not exploit it. That reading is now the majority one and fits the phrase in the form of God that precedes it. The reach for what he lacked reading was common in older scholarship and survives among unitarians. Both should be on the table; the majority reading has the stronger grammatical case.