philippians 3:17 - follow what example

[Madhu]

https://biblehub.com/philippians/3-17.htm

In this verse Paul is exhorting the recipients to follow his own
example. The question is what was the example. When I read it first I
understood it as referring to his evangelism: i.e. instead resting on
having "become perfect", he engages in relentless evangelism. I thought
this followed from the context of earlier chapters. However When I
checked I didn't find any author who thought the example was of his
mission.

Another possible view in light of Carmen Christi (2:5-11) which shows
jesus denying himself and taking his cross, is that Paul did the same
and his holding himself up as an example for the Philippians to emulate.

Is the first view tenable? (without positing heresies or problems which
paul may be addressing)



[When I looked up wikipedia, it suggests that Phillipians is a composite
text made of different letters. This might weaken the dependence of 3:17
on chapter 2, but i don't think the claim is true. Also there is a
suggestion that statements on Epaphroditus are somehow contradictory,
and suggest fragmentation. This was explained, I think by FF Bruce:
Epaphroditus was carrying the "gift" from the Philippians to Paul at Rome
and fell sick during his journey, which delayed him from reaching
Paul. He reaches Paul, and Paul sends him back with the letter instead
of requiring his services at Rome]

[Kendall K. Down]

On 22/05/2022 18:03, Madhu wrote:

> In this verse Paul is exhorting the recipients to follow his own
> example. The question is what was the example.

The immediate context, I think, gives the answer. In the preceding
verses he talks about giving up all for Christ and of persevering in
following Him. Those are the things he urges the Philippians to emulate.

> [When I looked up wikipedia, it suggests that Phillipians is a composite
> text made of different letters.

Isn't it funny how Paul could never write a whole letter? Poor chap was
reduced to sending post-it notes that the recipients had to piece
together - and they were always such bungling idiots that they never did
a decent job of it but left it so that the original post-it notes could
be teased apart and reconstructed by smart-ar***s this century.

Every other author of the period managed to write whole books of history
and science and plays and what-have-you; it was only New Testament
writers who never managed a whole book between 'em.

Odd, don't you think?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down