Anthony Flew, foremost atheist of the 20th century who before he died accepted intelligent design, called Paul a first rate intellectual. This matches Peter’s assessment (2Peter 3:15-16),
…even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures [writings], unto their own destruction.
Consequently it is tempting to read into Paul what we want. Both those in favor of historic Christian doctrine and Christology and those against it invoke Paul. Pamela Eisenbaum, writing as a Jew, wishes to reclaim Paul as a Jew, whereas David Klinghoffer sees Paul as an imposter. James Tabor, who is not Jewish but rejects the New Testament and embraces the Old, blames the departure from the teachings of Jesus on Paul—see Tabor (2012). Today—May 31, 2015—Tabor posted a post on his TaborBlog, Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth?  He says,
Paul never explicitly refers to Jesus’ virgin birth nor does he ever name either Mary or Joseph. What he does affirm is that Jesus pre-existed before his human birth and subsequently gave up his divine glory through his birth as a human being. He writes that Jesus “though existing in the form of God” emptied himself and took on human form, “being made in the likeness of humankind” (Philippians 2:6-7). He says further “though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the “riches” of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family. Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman …” (Galatians 4:4). The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world. It is not a far step from these ideas about Jesus’ pre-existence to the notion of Jesus as the first-begotten Son of God–eliminating any necessity for a human father. Paul’s entire message centers on a divine not a human Jesus–both before his birth and after his death. For Paul he is the pre-existent Son of God, crucified, but now raised to sit at the right hand of God. Like the Christian creeds that jump from Jesus’ birth to his death and resurrection in single phrase, entirely skipping over his life, Paul paves the way for a confessional understanding of what it means to be a Christian. As Bultmann once put it, it is the “thatness” of the Gospel which interested Paul–that he was born of a woman, he died, that he rose, that he is coming again–with nothing in between.
If one assumes that Paul was a Hellenist who had departed from Jewish orthodoxy, then one might interpret these verses thusly. But must we? Let’s take a look and see whether another interpretation is possible.
He thought it not Robbery to be Equal with God
Paul writes in Philippians 2:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
|ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦen morphēi Theou
‘in form of God’
|Genesis 5:1בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים
‘in the likeness of God’
|Peshitta ܒ݁ܰܕ݂ܡܽܘܬ݂ܳܐ ܕ݁ܰܐܠܳܗܳܐ
Must “being in the form of God” (ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ) mean that Jesus was God? It is Adam who bears the image and likeness of God. Paul employs much Adam imagery, as for example in his resurrection chapter (1Cor 15:45), “And so it is written [Gen 2:7], The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” And quoting Genesis 2:24 he says (Eph 5:31-32), “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”
|CHRIST IN IMAGE OF GOD|
|…Ἀδάμὅς ἐστιν τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος
who is a type of the coming one
|τοῦ Χριστοῦὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ
…of the Messiah
who is the image of God
|… τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ …ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ
…of his dear son …
who is the image of the invisible God
|… ἐν υἱῷ …ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
…by a son…
who being the brightness of the glory,
and an engraged image of his person
Confusion arises in Philippians because Paul uses the word ‘form’ instead of ‘image’ or ‘likeness’. The Peshitta, however, does use ‘likeness’ exactly as in Genesis and so the connection to Genesis is an ancient one.
What about “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”? That too goes back to Genesis (Gen 3:4-5): “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” God had commanded otherwise, “thou shalt not eat of it…” (Gen 2:17), nevertheless “she took of the fruit thereof” (Gen 3:6).
Was not that robbery? 
Thus Christ “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,” recalls Eve (Gen 3:6), “…and she took of the fruit thereof…” The serpent had promised (Gen 3:5), “… and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
There is a lesson here. Rather than seize the throne in Jerusalem—which is Adam’s throne—Jesus let the authorities put him to death. He could have taken it, as he said (Mat 26:53), “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?”
David passed this test too. He had been anointed king, i.e., was a messiah or christ (1Samuel 16:13). But for many years Saul sought to kill David. David and his mighty men could have destroyed Saul and taken the throne—all with public approval—but he didn’t. When David had the chance to do Saul in, he didn’t (1Samuel 24), and when he had humiliated Saul his conscience hurt and he came forth and said (verse 10), “Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the LORD had delivered thee to day into mine hand in the cave: and some bade me kill thee: but mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the LORD’S anointed.” In the resurrection David will yet be Israel’s king (Jeremiah 30:9; Ezekiel 37:24; Hosea 3:5). Could Jesus as a “son of Adam son of God” (Luke 3:38) and “rod out of the stem of Jesse” slated for higher office than David (Isaiah 11:1-5) do any less?
This is the understanding of David H. Stern (who, by the way, is Trinitarian and accepts preexistence). As he explains in his Commentary (Stern 1992),
|[T]he second Adam (Rom 5:15-18; 1Cor 15:45-49), was, like the first one, in the form or ‘image’ of God (Gen 1:26-27; 2Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:2), he, unlike the first Adam (Gen 3:57) and unlike Satan (Mat 4:1-10), did not consider equality with God something to be possessed by force. Not possessing by force could mean not retaining the equality with the Father which, as the Son of God, he already had. But more likely it means refraining from seizing what was not yet his, namely, rulership …The pre-existence of the Messiah was a familiar concept in rabbinic Judaism …, so that it is unnecessary to resort to the idea that Sha’ul is drawing on pagan notions of a ‘heavenly man’ who descended and carried through a mission of redemption for mankind. The Tanakh provides more than sufficient ground for this passage in its material about Adam (Gen 2:4-25; 3:1-22) and the suffering Servant of Adonai (Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12); there is no need to resort to explanations that assume Hellenistic or Gnostic influence.’|
The rabbis saw the preexistence of the Messiah as the preexistence of the office, not of the person, and this is also the most sensible way to understand “predestination” (Ephesians 1:3-11). It is the preexistence of crowns (John 14:2; 2Tim 4:8; Rev 3:11). The crowns are first in God’s plan, then there is the calling and qualification (Isaiah 41:8-10; Mat 22:14; John 6:44; 1Pet 2:9; 2Pet 1:10; Rev 17:14). One is not predestinated as a person—rather the crown to which one has been called was predestinated and thus preexisted.
When Paul says that the Messiah (Phil 2:7) “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men”, Paul is echoing David who easily could have mounted a palace coup and taken the kingdom but who instead humbled himself and endured years of persecution. The Messiah was born to be king (John 18:37). Nevertheless he humbled himself and went to his death rather than seize the kingship through robbery. The Messiah was no Marx. He is no revolutionary. He will yet be king in Jerusalem but he will sit upon the throne of Israel legitimately—as it says (Hosea 1:11), “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.”
This is the suffering servant motif in Isaiah (Isaiah 52:13-15; 53:1-12). It applies, as the sages say, to the whole nation of Israel and all its subjects. It also applies most particularly to the king.
“For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” Tabor writes: “He has to be referring here, metaphorically, to the ‘riches’ of Jesus’ pre-existence with God, since all our sources have Jesus born of a poor peasant family.”
But does Paul have to be referring to Jesus’ preexistence?
Paul is clearly contrasting spiritual riches and physical poverty—we see this already in 6:10, “As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.” And chapter 8 begins (verses 1-2), “Moreover, brethren, we do you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia; How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.” Here the contrast is between “deep poverty” and riches of “joy” and “liberality”.
Why cannot the same kind of thing apply to Jesus?
Being rich in spiritual riches Jesus willingly took up a cause “for your sakes” that brought poverty—thus Matthew 8:20, “And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” We don’t have to invoke preexistence to find spiritual riches in Jesus, as it says (Luke 2:40-52), “And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. … And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.” Jesus, of course, worked stupendous miracles too.
The choice to become poor (“for your sakes he became poor”) need not have been made in a past life. It was in this life that Jesus chose to forsake acclamation and fortune in order to do the will of God. The rulers of this world are tempted to accept the devil’s offer, but not so Jesus (Matthew 4:8-11): “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.”
Tabor writes: “Paul also writes “In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son, made of a woman …” (Galatians 4:4). The implication of these texts is that Jesus’ mother was merely the human receptacle for bringing Jesus into the world.” Following is the passage:
1 Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. 3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: 4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. 6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. 7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.
“But when the fulness of the time was come,” this is a very Jewish idea, as John Gill notes and quotes from Jewish sources: “The Jews themselves own that the time of the Messiah’s coming is
|Babylonian Talmud(Sanhedrin 97a Abodah Zarah 9a)|
|תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּtānā’ dəbê ’Ēlîyāhû
‘the words of Elijah were studied:’
|שֵׁשֶׁת אֲלָפִים שָׁנָה הֲוֵי הָעוֹלָםšēšet ’ălāpîm šānāʰ hăwê hā‘ôlām
‘The world endures six thousand years,’
|שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים תּוֹהוּšənê ’ălāpîm tôhû
‘tohu two thousand’
|שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים תּוֹרָהšənê ’ălāpîm tôrāʰ
‘Torah two thousand,’
|שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַšənê ’ălāpîm yəmôt hammāšîaḥ
‘the days of the messiah two thousand.’
fixed, and that at that time he shall come, whether they are worthy or not, for so it is asserted in their Talmud…” The time could be hastened by worthiness, but it could not be delayed. Also there is a tradition, often alluded to and that is attributed to Elijah the prophet, to the effect that Messiah would come 4000 years from the creation of Adam. This can be reasoned from Genesis where the tohu of the land in verse 2 of chapter 1 continues until Abraham enters the land at the beginning of the 3rd millennium and which initiates two millennia of Torah in that land—thus perhaps Luke 16:16: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached…” Then, even as Adam names the animals as they are brought forth on the 5th and 6th days (comparing Genesis 2:18-20 with 1:20-25), so the days of Messiah would coincide with the 5th and 6th millennia.
Then what about “God sent forth his Son”? Is preexistence implied there? Bruce (1988) thinks so; but Fung (1988) agrees with Karl Heinrich Rengstorf in Kittel (1964:406):
Linguistically there is no support for the thesis … that in Gl. 4:4 the ἐξ in ἐξαποστέλλειν indicates that “prior to his sending the one sent was in the presence of the one who sent him,” i.e., in this case “that prior to His sending, or prior to His birth, as the γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός tells us, Jesus was παρὰ τῷ θεῷ (Jn. 17:5) or πρὸς τὸν θεόν (Jn. 1:1).” The truth is that in this passage in Paul, which reminds us of John, the verb for sending (→ ἐξαποστέλλειν, C. 2) does not in itself make any Christological statement, but rather derives its Christological flavor from the Christological context in which it is used. We might also make the very pertinent observation that in Gl. 4:4, 6 Paul is not so much speaking of Christ as of God and of the event of salvation willed and in due time accomplished by Him.
With “…made of a woman,” according to Ellicott (1897), “There is no allusion here to the miraculous conception. The phrase ‘born of a woman’ was of common use. Comp. Matthew 11:11 : ‘Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.’ So here the expression is intended to bring out, not the divinity, but the true humanity of Christ.” And according to Meyer’s Commentary (1832-1859), “Paul desires to represent the birth of the Son of God not merely as an ordinary human birth, but also as an ordinary Jewish birth (comp. Hebrews 2:14-17); and he therefore says: ‘born of a woman, born under the law,’ so that He was subjected to circumcision and to all other ordinances of the law, like any other Jewish child.”
When Paul says “made of a woman” he may also have had in mind what Christians call the Protoevangelium (or Proto-Gospel), namely where God said to the serpent (Gen 3:15), “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Thus Albert Barnes (1834): “The promise was Genesis 3:15 that the Messiah should be the ‘seed’ or the descendant of woman; and Paul probably here alludes to the fulfillment of that promise.” Judaism, however, interpreted the woman’s seed as Israel—not specifically the Messiah—and elsewhere this is Paul’s interpretation (Rom 16:20): “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.”
|ἐξαγοράζω‘purchase, make wise use, redeem’
|Galatians 3:13-14 Christ hath redeemed [ἐξηγόρασεν] us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.Galatians 4:5 To redeem [ἐξαγοράσῃ] them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
Ephesians 5:16 Redeeming [ξαγοραζόμενοι] the time, because the days are evil.
Colossians 4:5 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming [ἐξαγοραζόμεν-οι] the time.
In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan though there is the allusion inasmuch as the cure for the Serpent’s bruising of the heel comes in the days of the King Messiah.
Paul follows verse 4 with verse 5, “To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Barnes’ Notes again: “Them that were under the law – Sinners, who had violated the Law, and who were exposed to its dread penalty.”
From the beginning there has been controversy over how this redemption takes place—there isn’t space here to delve into it—for that one should consult Beilby et al (2006). Gregory Boyd presents the Christus Victor argument—Jesus’ death was a victory—though as a Trinitarian he does not consider how it was a victory over what Judaism calls the evil inclination (Rom 7:21-25; 8:1-8; Gal 5:16-24; Heb 4:15; etc.). Suffice it to say that Paul does not contradict Jesus for whom forgiveness of sins does not issue from a blood sacrifice but rather to the degree that we forgive others—providing, of course, that they desire forgiveness (Mat 5:23-24; 6:12; etc.).
Barnes, Albert. 1834. Barnes’ New Testament Notes. Variously available on the internet, e.g., http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/.
Beilby, James, and Paul R. Eddy, editors. 2006. The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.
Boyd, Gregory A. 2006. Christus Victor View. In The Nature of the Atomement: Four Views, edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, pp. 23-49. Downers Grove, Illinois: InverVarsity Press.
Braude, William Gordon, and Israel James Kapstein, translators. 1981. Tanna Debe Eliyyahu: The Lore of the School of Elijah. The Jewish Publication Society of America.
Bruce, Frederick Fyvie. 1982. Epistle to the Galatians. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Eisenbaum, Pamela. 2009. Paul was not a Christian: The original message of a misunderstood apostle. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Ellicott, Charles John. 1897. An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers. For Galatians 4 see http://biblehub.com/commentaries/ellicott/galatians/4.htm.
Etheridge, John Wesley. 2005. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan Ben Uzziel on the Pentateuch with the Fragments of the Jerusalem Targum from the Chaldee. Two Volumes. Reprint of 1862-1865 edition. Piscataway, New Jersey: Gorgias Press. Available on line at http://juchre.org/targums/targums.htm & http://juchre.org/targums/pgen.htm.
Flew, Anthony. 2008. There Is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind. With Roy Abraham Varghese, and with an appendix by N. T. Wright. New York: HarperOne.
Fung, Ronald Y. K. 1988. The Epistle to the Galations. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Gill, John. 1746-8. An Exposition of the New Testament. 3 volumes. http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/
Kittel, Gerhard. 1964. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1. Translation by Geoffrey W Bromley of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Klinghoffer, David. 2005. Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History. New York: Doubleday.
Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. 1832-1859. Kritischexegetischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament. 16 volumes. There was an American edition in 11 volumes (1884-88), available on line at http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/.
Patai, Raphael. 1979. The Messiah Texts: Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press.
Stern, David H. 1992. The Jewish New Testament Commentary: A Companion Volume to the Jewish New Testament. Jerusalem: Jewish New Testament Publications.
Tabor, James D. 2012. Paul and Jesus: How the Apostle Transformed Christianity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
 Flew (2008).
 Eisenbaum 2009.
 Klinghoffer 2005.
 It’s probably better to translate כֵּאלֹהִים kē’lōhîm as “like God” (as in the NIV and other translations), because knowing good and evil is God’s prerogative. The Septuagint, however, has it plural: ὡς θεοί ‘as gods’.
 In Philippians 2:6 the Greek has ἁρπαγμὸν harpagmon ‘an act of seizing, robbery’ and the Peshitta has ܚܛܽܘܦ݂ܝܳܐ ḥəṭûpyâ ‘extortion, robbery’.
 Revised Standard Version. The KJV has “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”.
 Hebrew כִּי־מְשִׁיחַ יהוה הוּא ki-məšîaḥ YHWH hû’; Septuagint ὅτι χριστὸς Κυρίου οὗτός ἐστι. At that time Saul was the messiah or christ of YHWH!
 See Patai (1979).
 πλούσιος ὤν ‘being rich,” as also in 2Corinthians 11:3, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed [ὁ ὢν εὐλογητὸς ‘who being blessed’] for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.” Cf. the Darby Bible Translation: http://biblehub.com/dbt/2_corinthians/8.htm.
 Also found in chapter 2 of the Midrash, Tana Debe Eliyahu (סֵפֶר תָּנָא דְּבֵי אֵלִיָּהוּ). See Braude and Kapstein (1981). My translation of the relevant passage: “Another thing: ‘days were formed’ (Psalm 139:16). This is the seventh day of the world. Six thousand years pertain to this world, two thousand tohu, two thousand Torah, two thousand the days of our Messiah.”
דָּבָר אָחֵר יָמִים יוּצְרוּ זֶה יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי לְעוֹלָם לְפִי שֶׁהָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה שֵׁשֶת אֲלָפִים שָׁנָה שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים תֹּהוּ שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים תּוֹרָה שְׁנֵי אֲלָפִים יְמוֹת מְשִׁיחֶנוּ.
 Kittel was an anti-Semite but nevertheless did not give this an anti-Jewish interpretation.
 Rengstorf’s note 8: “Mutatis mutandis the thesis would also apply to 4:6 : ἐξαπέστειλεν … τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ [‘he sent the spirit of his son’].”
 See http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/4-4.htm.
 See also http://biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/4-4.htm.
 Barnes’ Notes on the Bible. See http://sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/barnes/gal004.htm.
 Etheridge translation (Gen 3:15): “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.”
וּדְבָבוּ אֱישַׁוֵּי בֵּינָךְ וּבֵין אִיתְּתָא בֵּין זַרְעֲיַית בְּנָךְ וּבֵין זַרְעֲיַית בְּנָהָא וִיהֵי כַד יְהוֹן בְּנָהָא דְאִיתְּתָא נָטְרִין מִצְוָותָא דְאוֹרַיְיתָא יֶהֱווֹן מְכַוְּונִין וּמָחְיָין יָתָךְ עַל רֵישָׁךְ וְכַד שָׁבְקִין מִצְוָותָא דְאוֹרַיְיתָא תֶּהֱוֵי מִתְכַּוִּין וְנָכִית יַתְהוֹן בְּעִקְבֵיהוֹן בְּרַם לְהוֹן יְהֵא אָסוּ וְלָךְ לָא יְהֵא אָסוּ וַעֲתִידִין אִינּוּן לְמֶעְבַּד שַׁפְיוּתָא בְּעִיקְבָא בְּיוֹמֵי מַלְכָּא מְשִׁיחָא
 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yetzer_hara.