The place of mimesis in

Pauls thought
JO-ANN A. BRANT

Pauls seemingly egocentric exhortation to imitate him (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1;

Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6-7) poses two problems for the exegete. First, by hold-
ing himself up as an example Paul seems to be contradicting his own com-
mand to self-humiliation. Secondly, imitation of Paul strikes the modern
interpreter as an inadequate way of going about perfecting oneself in
Christ. In the realm of art, imitation is academic, derivative, dull. Given
the modern artists attempt to bring to expression the innovative and even
the unique, one is likely to use imitation in a disparaging sense. Artists be-
lieve in Ezra Pounds precept, &dquo;make it new.&dquo; Similarly, imitation in the
realm of human behaviour is viewed as flattery and an obstacle to self-
fulfilment. Pauls understanding of imitation clearly differs from this cur-
rent view. The analogy between art and behaviour is helpful, for just as Ar-
istotle could define art as an imitation (mimesis) of nature, Paul could con-
sider life in Christ a mimesis of the Christians nature.
Scholars who have examined these texts tend to focus upon the object
of the mimesis rather than the process or activity in which Paul exhorts his
reader to engage. For example, Adele Reinhartz notes that although Hel-
lenistic Greek literature often holds up exemplary figures as objects of imi-
tation, Paul is unique in identifying himself as an appropriate object.1
Others focus upon 1 Thessalonians 1:7 and 1 Corinthians 11:1 in order to
argue that Paul is really talking about imitation of Christ.2 David M. Stan-
ley focusses upon Pauls attempt to lead his readers to share his experi-

1 Adele Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation: mimetai mou ginesthe—
become imitators of me, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 16 (1987): 395.
2 E. J. Tinsley, The Imitation of God in Christ (London: SCM Press, 1960), p. 139. Willis de
Boer, The Imitation of Paul (Kampen: University of Amsterdam, 1962), p. 211, claims that
imitation serves salvation and leads to direct imitation of Christ.

Jo-Ann Brant is a graduate of McMaster University teaching at Goshen College in Goshen,

IN. This work was completed with the aid of an Ontario Graduate Scholarship.

285-
© 1993 Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion / Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

286

ence of conversion, baptism, appropriation of tradition and the trials of

his career as the exemplary model for the imitator. Although these stud-
ies illuminate aspects of the mimesis texts, all tend to focus upon a passive
understanding of mimesis, that is, how the imitator is like Paul. A survey of
Greek literature reveals a more active role for the imitator which Paul
shares. His intention in calling his readers imitators or exhorting them to
become imitators comprehends the notion that an imitator engages in an
act of mimesis, a process by which the imitator brings to expression an im-
mutable principle. In Pauls thought, this principle is a particular aspect
of ones new nature in Christ, the ethic of self-renunciation. Mimesis is
then an activity that the believer can engage in once he or she has been
baptized, and Paul serves as an example for the imitator because of the le-
gitimacy of his own conduct.
This study will proceed through three steps. The first entails an exami-
nation of the classical understanding of mimesis in order to broaden our
semantic horizon and allow us to shed any &dquo;spurious twist to the meaning
of the word&dquo; imposed by the modern attitude toward imitation. The sec-
ond step of the study is then a general discussion of Pauls meaning, fol-
lowed by an exegetical examination of 1 Thessalonians 1:6-7; 2:14; 1 Co-
rinthians 4:16; 11:1; and Philippians 3:17.~ The third step provides an ac-
count of the legitimacy of Pauls use of himself as an example for the imi-
tator.

Mimesis
The English word &dquo;imitation&dquo; obscures the meaning of mimesis, because it
can stand for either the act of imitation or the product of that act.6 Paul
uses the cognates mimetes, &dquo;imitator,&dquo; mimeomai, &dquo;imitate,&dquo; but never the

3 David M. Stanley, "Imitation in Pauls Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to
and His Own Christian Foundations," in Peter Richardson and John C. Hurd,
Jesus
eds., From Jesus to Paul (Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984) , p. 127-42.
4 James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961),
p. 108; Barr warns of the dangers of assigning spurious meanings on the basis of word
studies without attending to the contextual meaning of the word, but some attention to
the possible semantic horizon is necessary. An exhaustive study of the use of mimeomai
and its cognates in all stages of Greek literature, however, is beyond the scope of this pa-
per.
5 Although 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians contain cognates of mimeomai, these epistles
will not into this discussion due to the serious doubts entertained by many schol-
enter
ars regarding their authenticity. On 2 Thessalonians, see I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2
Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 29-30; Marshall himself decides in
favour of Pauls authorship. On Ephesians, see Marcus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (Garden
City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), p. 36-39.
6 See George Whalley, "On Translating Aristotles Poetics," University of Toronto Quarterly,
39 (1969-70): 85.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 287

noun mimema, &dquo;imitation.&dquo; A survey of Greek literature indicates that the

idea that mimesis produces a copy (to mimma) appears- infrequently. In
Platos Timaeus, mimema is a technical term for the objects of sense percep-
tion and reflects the cosmology of the text. The visible world is a mimema
because it imitates, through its actions and appearance, the intelligible
world, the world of ideas.7 When Josephus describes gold leaves which ap-
pear to be real, he qualifies to mimema with the word technes in order to
make the distinction between the natural and the artificial clear. In Pla-
tos Cratylus, however, Socrates provides a description of the mimisis of
sign language in which no copy or mimicry is implied. According to Soc-
rates, if a man had neither voice nor tongue, &dquo;We should imitate
(mimoumai) the nature of things: the elevations of our hands to heaven
would mean lightness and upwardness.... &dquo;9 Here mimesis is a process
whereby one expresses the essential characteristics of the object that one
imitates. Just as a word is not a copy of its object, the product of mimesis is
not necessarily a copy.
Aristotle provides an understanding of the characteristics of mimesis and
the potential application of mimisis to education and ethics which reveals
that mimesis is a process of making rather than becoming like something.
In the Poetics, he speaks of the origin of poetry which he attributes to the
following cause: &dquo;From childhood men have an instinct for representation
(mimeisthai), and in this respect man differs from other animals in that he
is far more imitative (mime-masi) and learns his first lessons by representing
things and all rejoice in the representation.&dquo;1 The comparison of human
beings to animals accentuates the pedagogic value of mimesis and indicates
that mime-sis requires a cognitive process. It is not mimicry or rote repeti-
tion of gestures or words. On the contrary, Aristotle means that one learns
through making, as the English translation implies. One represents ideas
in dance, literature and so forth, and learns by the process of bringing the
idea into being. For example, a child draws a horse and thereby recog-
nizes the physical attributes of which a horse consists. In play, a child rep-
resents a ruler by enacting the role of a king or a queen and, as a result,
learns the nature of governing.

7 See Plato, The Timaeus, 48e, translated by Benjamin Jowett, in Edith Hamilton and
Huntington Cairns, eds., Plato: The Collected Dialogues (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1961), p. 1176.
8 The Jeurish War 7.142.
9 Plato, TheCratylus, 432a, translated by Benjamin Jowett, in Edith. Hamilton and Hunt-
ington Cairns, eds., Plato: The Collected Dialogues (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1961), p. 466.
10 Aristotle, Poetics, 1448b4.2, translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe (London: William Heine-
mann, 1932) , p. 13.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

288

When Aristotle explores the principle that one learns about poetry
through mimesis, the distinction between imitating and mimicry becomes
clear. According to Aristotle, the discovery of tragedy began with improvisa-
tion.11 At first poets used trochaic meter with laughable results. When they
began to imitate ordinary speech through the use of iambic meter, they
discovered the meter appropriate to tragedy, for tragedy ultimately teaches
about the character of real people. In short, by making a tragedy the poets
came to understand the nature of tragedy. 12 Mimsis is, therefore, funda-
mental to the development of human activity and understanding.
Aristotles treatment of mimesis also highlights the ethical decision inher-
ent in that process. Clearly, the imitator chooses to imitate an object or

concept which can be either good or bad.13 Aristotle explains in his discus-
sion of tragedy that people enjoy looking at the products of mimesis and
thereby learn about the original object from the representation or ex-
ample.&dquo; If the imitator is cognizant of the power of mimesis to instruct, he
or she may choose to teach about either the good or the bad. IS For ex-

ample the artist teaches the observer the nature of beauty by painting
something beautiful, or of ugliness by painting something ugly. Given that
the imitator is involved in the conscious effort to bring an idea to expres-
sion, the imitator should also act responsibly, for he or she provides an ex-
ample for others which may shape society either for the worse or the better.
Pauline mimesis

Just as Aristotle, in calling a poet an imitator, does not mean that the poet
adopts the qualities of the object he or she imitates, so Paul does not
mean that the imitator is a mirror reflection of his or her object. Rather

he means that one engages in an activity which brings an idea to expres-

sion. Pauls exhortation to imitate addresses a particular problem. Once
baptized into Christ, all aspects of a persons life should reflect that reality.
It is clear from Pauls frequent rebuke of his readers that this is not the
case. The baptized person must bring his or her words and deeds into

conformity with a life in Christ. Paul asserts that those who behave as they
ought are imitators; those who do not behave appropriately must become
imitators. For the latter group the act of mimesis fulfils a pedagogic func-
tion in that the imitator comes to recognize and to understand those
attributes of which the Christian life consists in order to perform his or
her mimists.

11 Ibid., 1448b4.7, p. 15.

12 Ibid., 1449a4.13-21, p. 17-19.
13 Ibid., 1448a2.1-7, p. 9-11.
14 Ibid., 1448b4.1-6, p. 13-15.
15 Ibid., 1448b4.8, p. 15.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 289

David M. Stanley predicates his analysis of the mimsis texts upon the
presupposition that Pauls entire experience of Christ is the object of imi-
tation. 16 According to Stanley this is illustrated by Romans 6:34; Paul un-
derstands himself to be an imitator of Christ by virtue of his participation
in Christs death and resurrection. 17 The candidate for baptism then imi-
tates Paul by taking on the image of Christ. Although there is an undeni-
able mimetic quality to Pauls description of baptism, the mimesis texts
stand separate from the baptism texts. Paul addresses his exhortation to
those already baptized; as a result of baptism, the one who is baptized is
resurrected into a new life. 18 Baptism places one in a new condition, a new
creation.l9 Paul does not refer to a metaphoric death but an actual trans-
formation from one state, death, to a new state, life. According to Edvin
Larrson, through the process of baptism the glory of God is restored; one
is recreated in the image of Christ; Christ, the new prototype, is the new
Adam who possesses Gods glory, wisdom and mastery. He is the image of
God. Texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:44-49 and Philippians 2:5-11 indicate
that for Paul the Gottesebenbildlichkeit of Christ is precisely the image to
which behaviour should conform and to which it is capable of conform-
ing. 20 Pauls problem is that although baptism is a death to sin where the be-
liever is recreated in the image of God, his or her behaviour is not always
in conformity with that image.
The distinction between the image or baptism texts and the mimesis
texts lies in the imitators limited capacity to create. Unlike Ezra Pounds
artist who makes something new, the imitator is bringing into being some-
thing that expresses a pre-existing order, the state inaugurated by baptism.
Mimesis does not bring about an ontological change. That change, the
transformation into the image of Christ, is conferred at baptism, a process
in which God acts as creator. After baptism the believer begins his or her
work of shaping a life or a community which reflects his or her new iden-
tity. This act entails the adoption of the ethic of self-renunciation which
derives from the believers nature, the image of the man of heaven (1 Cor.
15:49) who renounces or empties himself for the benefit of others.
The mime-sis texts focus upon one of Pauls central concerns, the con-
crete manifestation of ones status in Christ in his or her actions. By call-
ing believers to become imitators Paul expresses the notion that ones ac-

16 Stanley,"Imitation in Pauls Letters," p. 131.

17 132.
Ibid., p.
18 Edvin Larrson, Christus als Vorbild (Lund: C. K. W. Gleerup, 1962), p. 58, recognizes the
mimetic quality of baptism and argues that the moment of immersion is the burial of
Jesus. Jesus, as a man, was obliged to be obedient unto death. Thus, the candidate for
baptism, who is condemned to death by sin, must demonstrate the same obedience.
19 Ibid., p. 69.
20 Ibid., p. 237.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

290

tivity, the and society one shapes, must be done in conformity with
events
some principle rather than in response to circumstance or through the as-
sertion of ones will. The divine likeness of humanity is not mastery nor is
it wilfulness; it is humility, weakness and obedience. Mimesis requires that
one submit to authority. One who is already baptized, then, begins to ad-

here to his or her divine likeness. Just as imitators are obedient and their
activity is not a sign of their own authority, Paul as an example for the imi-
tator does not rely upon an assertion of his status but the conformity of his
own behaviour to the image of Christ.
All of the following texts contain the same notion of mimesis. Mimisis is
a process in which the imitator expresses, through the subordination of
his or her interests to those of others, the ideal represented by Christ. In
most cases, however, Paul provides the example. He, like the communities

striving to be imitators, is engaged in the same mimisis with the same goals:
preaching the gospel or building up the body of Christ.
1 Thessalonians
And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for in spite of persecution you re-
ceived the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that you became an ex-
ample to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. ( Thess. 1:6-7)
For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ
Jesus that are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own compa-
triots as they did from the Jews. ( Thess. 2:14)

In Pauls first letter to the Thessalonians, he need not exhort his readers
to be imitators; they are already imitators. The mimesis texts appear within
the context of Pauls praise for the communitys conduct. Most commen-
tators debate whether it is the act of accepting the gospel or suffering that
wins the Thessalonians Pauls approbation. They accepted the gospel, and
as a result they are persecuted; therefore they resemble Paul. In fact, their
act of mimesis requires a greater initiative on their part than this under-
standing credits them. They act upon the ethical principle exemplified by
Paul, the Lord and the churches in Judea that the interest of others super-
sedes ones own. Clearly, they have engaged in active missions in Mac-
edonia and Achaia (cf. 1 Thess. 1:8), and for this reason Paul calls them
imitators.
Ernest Best suggests that the Thessalonians were imitators at one partic-
ular point in the past, the moment they received the gospel.21 Bests pro-
posal illustrates two problems which arise when one equates imitator with
imitation. First, the title &dquo;imitators&dquo; cannot have the same import when

21 Ernest Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Adam and Charles
Black, 1972), p. 77.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 291

Paul uses it later in the epistle. In the case of &dquo;imitators of the churches
...
in Judea&dquo; Best concedes that the Thessalonians are imitators because
they suffer. If this conclusion is consistent with his interpretation of
1 Thessalonians 1:6, then the Thessalonians suffered at one particular
time. But the letter suggests that they continue to suffer. It is more proba-
ble that Paul means that they are imitators in the same sense that one is an
artist. One does not cease to be an artist when one lays down the brush,
nor does a single act mark the completion of the Thessalonians role as
imitator. The second problem with Bests conclusion is that there is a lack
of congruency between the act of conversion and the list of models which
Paul names. While Paul, Silvanus and Timothy all experience the &dquo;coming
of the gospel,&dquo; this statement does not hold true for &dquo;the Lord.&dquo; Stanley
attempts to reconcile the inclusion of the Lord with the conclusion that
the Thessalonians imitate Paul by accepting the gospel. He suggests that
Paul adds &dquo;and the Lord&dquo; as an afterthought.22
Paul intends the Lord and
the gospel to stand in conjunction, for when one accepts the gospel, one
accepts the Lord.23 This act of exegetical juggling hinges upon the conclu-
sion that Paul intends the act of acceptance as the object of mimesis and
that his sentence structure is careless.
The quest for congruency between the imitators and their examples
leads some commentators to conclude that the Thessalonians do not actu-
ally do anything; instead, they suffer at the hands of their persecutors.
Willis de Boer argues that suffering is necessary in order to be a Christian,
for Paul predicts the inevitability of suffering in 1 Thessalonians 3:4; &dquo;For
when we were with you, we told you beforehand that we were to suffer af-
fliction ; as it has come to pass.&dquo;2 De Boer acknowledges that the suffering
of the Thessalonians has an active quality in that they hold fast to their
faith and endure suffering.25
He stresses, nonetheless, the idea that Paul
calls them imitators because he observes the resemblance between their
suffering and his own.26 De Boer focusses upon the word affliction (thli-
besthai) in his interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:6 on the basis of his in-
terpretation of 3:4. By doing this, he ignores several significant compo-
nents of both verses. The first of these components is that the Thessaloni-
ans experience joy as well as persecution. Joy may suggest two different
responses. De Boer argues that suffering is a credential of Christian faith;
he identifies joy as the response to suffering, because suffering confirms

22 David M. Stanley, " Become Imitators of Me: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic
Tradition," Biblica, 40 (1959): 866.
23 Ibid.
24 De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, p. 96.
25 Ibid., p. 103.
26 Ibid., p. 124.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

292

the authenticity of the Thessalonians faith.27 The Thessalonians joy, how-

ever, may exist in spite of their affliction, that is, the affliction is inconse-
quential ; it does not deter their activity. 1 Thessalonians 3:4 implies that
the Thessalonians anticipated their affliction. Again, there may be two rea-
sons for their anticipation: they hoped for confirmation of their true faith,

or they gave it occasion to occur. In the latter case, the Thessalonians are

not necessarily passive victims. The equation of &dquo;imitation&dquo; with suffering

affliction ignores the fact that the Thessalonians were engaged in some ac-
tivity that incurred the opposition of others.
The proper understanding of how the Thessalonians are imitators in
the contextof 1 Thessalonians 1:6 lies in an examination of Pauls own de-
scription of his exemplary activities. Although Paul gives other examples,
he focusses upon his own relation to the community. Prior to noting that
the Thessalonians are imitators, Paul mentions that they are familiar with
what kind of people he and his associates proved to be; he qualifies this
description with the phrase &dquo;for your sake.&dquo; On a superficial level, this
qualification means that Pauls purpose is to evangelize, to convert, and
the Thessalonians benefit from this conversion. On another level, the
phrase implies that Paul orients his conduct toward the interests of others.
He describes himself as a nurse taking care of her children ( Thess. 2:7).
Then he adds that he &dquo;worked night and day&dquo; in order not to burden the
Thessalonians ( Thess. 2:9). Paul stands as the principal example. He has
adopted an ethic of self-renunciation in order to manifest a life in Christ
and has provided the concrete example of how one should go about being
an imitator.

The second mimesis text names the churches in Judea as the example,
but no explicit reference is made to the activities which characterize those
communities. Here it is necessary to reconstruct the situation in which the
Thessalonians earned the title of imitator. The epistle contains a number
of allusions to the Thessalonians activity which leads to persecution. The
first hint occurs in the introduction when Paul uses the same vocabulary
to describe the Thessalonians activity as he habitually uses to describe his
own mission.28 The Thessalonians receive praise for their &dquo;work of faith&dquo;

and their &dquo;labour of love&dquo; (1 Thess. 1:3). As a result of this labour, &dquo;the
word of the Lord sounded forth from you in Macedonia and Achaia&dquo;
(1 Thess. 1:8). It is clear that the Thessalonians continue preaching the
gospel after Paul and his associates are driven from Thessalonica. That
Paul sees the Thessalonians as imitators when they preach is shown in his
statement that the Thessalonians suffered the same things from their own

countrymen as the churches of Judea suffered from the Jews (1 Thess.

27 Ibid., p. 96.
28 1 Cor. 3:8; 2 Cor. 10:15, 11:23; 1 Thess. 3:5.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 293

2:14). The Jews had driven Paul and company out from Judea and hin-
dered them from spreading the gospel to the gentiles. The nature of the
opposition which the Thessalonians encounter hinders them from speak-
ing the gospel. Paul, his associates, the churches of Judea and the Thes-
salonians are engaged in the same sort of activity: they preach the gospel.
In 1 Thessalonians 2:14 the shift from Paul to the churches in Judea as the
example to be imitated reflects the objective of this activity, that is, the ex-
pansion of the Church, as well as the corporate quality of Pauline mimesis.
The issue of how the Lord participates in the activity arises. It is appar-
ent that the comparison of activity cannot alone supply an adequate expla-
nation of the manner in which the Thessalonians are imitators. Paul indi-
cates that the common element is a principle rather than a one-to-one cor-

respondence between the activity of the Thessalonians and their ex-

amples. The Thessalonians do not simply copy Pauls actions when they
preach; they preach the gospel in order to serve the interests of others.
This fact is clear, for they receive affliction for their efforts. It is this princi-
ple of placing the interests of others before ones own that guides their ac-
tions.
Several aspects of the mimesis texts now attract attention. Paul and his
companions are examples of people who deny their own desires or privi-
leges in the interest of others. Their behaviour reflects an ethic which the
Thessalonians imitate; that is, they express this ethic in their own
behaviour. As a result of the Thessalonians mimesis, they spread the word
or gospel not merely by speaking but by the example of their own con-

duct, their willingness to speak in spite of persecution.

1 Corinthians
Iappeal to you then, be imitators of me. For this reason I sent you Timothy, who is
my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, to remind you of my ways in Christ, as I
teach them everywhere in every church. ( Cor. 4:16-17)

Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please

everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, so
that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. (1 Cor. 10:32-11:1 )

In both of these mimesis texts Paul identifies himself as an example for the
imitator. This may seem odd, for in the same epistle Paul criticizes the
practice of forming personality cults, in which the Corinthians tend to
identify exclusively with a particular leader.
The first mimesis text stands in the context of admonishment against the
arrogant behaviour paraded by the Corinthians. At the centre of the prob-
lem is a misunderstanding of wisdom; the Corinthians have confused
Gods wisdom with a worldly sort which lends individuals power or nobil-
ity. As a result they form personality cults in reverence of leaders within

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

294

the Church ( Cor. 1:12) , and they boast of the superiority of particular
leaders (3:3; 5:6). Paul admonishes them to be imitators of him (4:16),
and to this end he sends Timothy to remind them of his ways in Christ
(4:17) . Again Pauls role as example is dependent upon the fact that the
imitators have witnessed the behaviour he extols.
The second admonition to be imitators ( Cor. 11:1 ) addresses a sec-
ond consequence of the problem. Puffed up with their so-called wisdom,
the Corinthians conduct themselves inappropriately. Of those who con-
sider themselves to be spiritually superior, some deny their partners mari-
tal rights and others criticize those who fail to understand that meat is
permitted. Pauls purpose in exhorting this community to be imitators is
to educate them or bring them to a proper understanding of their status
in Christ. He argues that even though he has the right to food and drink,
to the company of a wife and to refrain from working (9:4-7), he does not
make use of these rights (9:15). He explains, &dquo;I have become all things to
all men, that I might by all means save some&dquo; (9:22). The logic of this act
of self-abandonment appears in the following chapter: &dquo;All things are law-
ful, but not all things are helpful&dquo; (10:23). Consequently, Paul advises that
one should cease to seek ones own good, rather one should seek the

good of ones neighbour. Paul exemplifies humility in that his conduct is

guided by the interest of others rather than self-interest.
The Corinthian texts demonstrate clearly an aspect of mimisis which
was evident in the Thessalonian texts: Pauls role as an
example hinges
upon his relationship to Christ. In the first mimesis text, Paul identifies his
conduct with &dquo;my ways in Christ,&dquo; and, in the second, he claims that he is
an &dquo;imitator&dquo; of Christ. How one is to understand the
relationship of Paul
and Christ in the task of mimesis generates disagreement between com-
mentators. Stanley states that the phrases &dquo;my ways in Christ&dquo; and &dquo;as I
am of Christ&dquo; indicate &dquo;the hierarchical structure of the Pauline
concep-
tion of imitation&dquo; in which Paul acts as a mediator; ultimately one imitates
Christ.29 De Boer argues that Pauls ways in Christ refer to Christs ways;3o
thus, the phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:1 indicates that Paul and Christ are
interchangeable. Boykin Sanders suggests that &dquo;my ways in Christ&dquo; refers
to the communal existence which results from baptism into the body of
Christ.31 Pauls ways in Christ promote unity, and to be an imitator of
Christ is to realize this unity. Sanders states that &dquo;to imitate Christ estab-
lishes the communal principle and excludes the divisiveness which is

29 Stanley,Become Imitators of Me," p. 874.

30 De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, p. 150.
31 Boykin Sanders, "Imitating Paul: 1 Cor. 4:16," Harvard Theological Review, 74 (1981):
359-61.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 295

introduced by boasting in the name of particular leaders. &dquo;32 In light of

this interpretation, Pauls call to be imitators is a response to his earlier
rhetorical question: &dquo;Is Christ divided?&dquo; (1:13). The answer is no, for
Christs way is to promote unity. Pauls example, by eliminating the dis-
cord which results from self-interested boasting and jealousy, restores the
unity inherent in Christs way.
Because the Corinthians, unlike the Thessalonians, have not been imi-
tators, Paul exhorts them to become imitators. Although Paul does not ex-
plicitly explain that mimesis leads to wisdom or understanding, there are
several statements within the epistle that suggest that Paul recognizes the
pedagogic value of this process. In direct conjunction with the first mimesis
text, Paul refers to himself as a father and to the imitators as children. Ear-
lier in the epistle, Paul accuses the Corinthians of behaving &dquo;as infants in
Christ&dquo; rather than &dquo;as spiritual people&dquo; (3:1). Paul also states that
&dquo;among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this
age ...&dquo; (2:6). Because the Corinthians are &dquo;infants in Christ&dquo; Paul
claims that they are not ready for this wisdom which he describes meta-
phorically as &dquo;solid food&dquo; (3:2). Evidently, in order to progress from &dquo;in-
fants&dquo; to spiritual maturity the Corinthians must begin to behave in an ap-
propriate manner. Immediately before and after the mimesis text, Paul in-
dicates that his role as father is also the role of educator (4:15,17). This
suggests that by imitating Paul, the Corinthians will not only conduct
themselves in a manner comparable to one who is spiritually mature but
will also gain maturity. They will comprehend the inversion of the normal
power structure brought about by election (1:27-28; 3:5-6) and shed their
arrogance and become servants.
The process of progressing from immaturity to maturity is mimesis. By
imitating Pauls example, the imitator not only behaves with humility, he
or she comes to understand what humility means. Mimesis, as a process of

education, is neither the Skinnerian education of the late 20th century

nor the Benthamite ideal of the 19th century. In both these cases, the edu-
cator shapes the pupil. In the mimisis of Pauls letter to the Corinthians,
the imitator, by acting as Paul does, gains cognizance of the meaning of
his or her actions. The actions should be deliberate and self-shaping in or-
der to realize the goal of spiritual maturity. Simple mimicry cannot
achieve such an ideal. In mime-sis, a pattern or order, which becomes ap-
parent to the imitator in the performance of mimesis, stands behind the ex-
ample. Just as the child learns what parts comprise his or her body by
drawing the body, the Christian learns what a spiritual adult is by acting as
a spiritual adult. That is, by performing their mimesis of Paul, by being imi-

tators, the Corinthians learn the nature of spiritual maturity and cease to

32 Ibid., p. 166.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

296

behave as people of the flesh. They are, then, capable of comprehending

the wisdom of God.

Philippians
Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to
the example you have in us. (Phil. 3:17)
Paul writes the letter to the Philippians from prison to express his appreci-
ation for a gift which they have sent and to assure them that his intern-
ment does not deter the advance of the gospel. He focusses attention

upon the meaning of his own situation and his hopes for the Philippians.
Within this context, he finds grounds for comparison between himself,
the Philippians and Christ. Paul adjures the Philippians to look &dquo;to the in-
terests of others&dquo; (Phil. 2:4), a principle which he illustrates by referring
to Christs self-renunciation (2:6-11), and he encourages them to be &dquo;co-
imitators&dquo; (symmimetai) of his own example (3:17).
The role of Christ within Pauls concept of mimisis is made evident by
the inclusion of a pre-Pauline hymn (2:5-11). The hymn serves two func-
tions. First, it is a description of a soteriological drama, the eschatological
significance of which, in reference to Pauls concept of mimisis, is that it ef-
fects the radical reversal of the order of power. The humble one becomes
exalted. To die is to gain. The reversal represents the order in which
Pauls use of mimesis is possible: an order must exist to which the mimesis
can conform. Secondly, the hymn serves to illustrate the ethical principle

of self-renunciation which mimesis brings to expression by emphasizing the

behaviour which Paul claims to display and to which he exhorts the Philip-
pians (2:3-4). Christ, in an act of humility, empties himself and takes the
form of a servant (2:7-8).
The issue at hand is the relationship between the eschatological signifi-
cance of the event and Christs role as an example for the imitator. Be-
cause Jesus ultimate act of self-renunciation establishes the order to

which the mimesis of the Philippians conforms, it seems logical that Christ,
rather than Paul, should be the object which one imitates. In this epistle,
however, Paul draws attention toward his own actions and those of others:
&dquo;brethren, be co-imitators of me, and mark those who so live as you have
an example in us&dquo; (3:17) .33 The exemplary role of Christ functions inde-

pendently from his soteriological function, but his example is in harmony

with the soteriological result. The Philippians mimesis may result in the ex-
pression of the same ethical principle, but it cannot result in a repetition
of this soteriological event.

33 This is my own translation; the original Greek text reads symmim

tai mou ginesthe.
ē

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 297

Some commentators start at the power which Paul assigns the role of
imitator. Morna Hooker claims that &dquo;appeals to imitate the example of
others are all very well, but do not in the long run provide the power
which is necessary to put the appeal into effect. &dquo;34 Hookers problem with
the mimesis text reflects the failure of the modern notion of imitation to con-
vey the meaning that Pauls use of symmimetai intends. The Philippians do
not mimic Paul; they take the ideal that Pauls actions represent and apply it
to their own behaviour. Pauls emphasis lies on the concrete manifestation
of honour and not upon some abstract ideal of a state of perfection.
Paul emphasizes the coordinated effort of the Philippians to achieve
their goal by calling them symmimitai. The mimesis of the Philippians
stands in conjunction with the exhortation to be of the same mind. In or-
der to be of the same mind, individuals bend their wills to conform to the
will of others. The purpose behind their actions becomes identical with
that of the community. Consequently, unity of mind requires that one act
with a common purpose rather than think the same thoughts as others or
share a common attitude which is not necessarily expressed in conduct.35
The principle of subordinating personal interests and privileges for the
good of the community is inherent within the concept of one mind.
Mimesis is a process which conforms to a pattern; it becomes the appropri-
ate means of co-ordinating the actions of various individuals into a unit.
The behaviour of the Philippians can be compared to the mimesis of a
number of artisans which results in the completion of a single project.
The Philippians are co-imitators, not because they perform the same task
or resemble each other, but because they are engaged in the same mimesis.

Pauls use both of Christ as an exemplary figure and of his own life as
the example for the imitator in no way distorts or subordinates the soterio-
logical significance of the Christ event. The individual, in the role of imita-
tor, does not seek to become Christ-like in order to attain perfection, and
thereby to circumvent the need of Christs redemptive act. Instead, mimesis
serves to produce the appropriate expression of the reality made possible

by the crucifixion and exaltation of Christ. Pauls concern is with concrete

action. It is therefore appropriate that Paul focusses upon the edifying as-
pect of a specific action within the life of Christ rather than try to create

34 Morna Hooker, Pauline Pieces (London: Epworth Press, 1979), p. 78. Hookers solution
to this problem is to replace the idea of imitation with that of conformity. Cf. also N. A.

Dahl, Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), p. 34, who re-
places imitatio
with conformitas.
35 Contra Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation," p. 400. J. Paul Samp-
ley, Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman
Law (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 61-62, argues that the Philippians form a so-
cietas, a traditional Greco-Roman partnership in order to make possible a particular
goal.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

298

abstractions about Christs mental state. His call to be co-imitators sustains

his concern for the concrete, for it encourages the Philippians to take ac-
tion in order to express the fact that they are of one mind.

Conclusions

When the goal of imitation is seen as teleological rather than ontological,

that is, bringing about an end in conformity to a principle rather than
transforming the individual engaged in mimesis, problems with the impo-
tency or negative connotation of imitation vanish. The imitator is no
longer seen as a passive agent. His or her actions are no longer considered
mimicry. The resemblance between Paul and his imitators lies in the fact
that they are both engaged in the same mimesis. In some cases, the
behaviour that they exhibit is similar. The Thessalonians, for example,
also preach the gospel. In other cases, the activity can be quite different
from the particular example Paul provides. The Corinthians are called to
exercise their own judgment in determining which behaviour best suits
the spiritual health of their community. Mimesis is then a substantive
means of realizing Christian goals.

The question of the irony of Pauls seemingly boastful claim that he is

an example worthy of imitation may now be addressed. Scholarly consen-

sus recognizes that the call to be imitators depends upon Pauls under-

standing of his apostolic authority. W. Michaelis refers to Pauls apostolic

authority as a mandate to command and admonish and, so consequently,
to be obeyed.36 Adele Reinhartz locates the call in the context of Pauls
self-defence of his apostleship. 37
Reinhartz argues that Pauls call for his
imitators to express humility, a humility which he himself manifests, miti-
gates the inherent immodesty in his demand. 38 Reinhartz is correct in her
reconciliation of the paradox; however, the understanding of mimesis pro-
vided above lends further insight into the nature of the authority that Paul
claims. The demand for humility finds its legitimacy in the congruency be-
tween behaviour and nature which Paul hopes to elicit from his audience.
The divine likeness to which those baptized in Christ conform is weakness
and humility. There is a humility inherent in the act of mimesis which con-
cedes that any appropriate act reflects an order that already exists beyond
ones will to create. The actor is not the creator of the form; he or she is
the agent who exercises his or her abilities in order to reproduce that or-
der in a concrete form. If the actions are to be &dquo;legitimate,&dquo; persons must
concede that personal interests do not define &dquo;legitimacy.&dquo; By adhering

36 ē in G. Kittel, ed., Theological

W. Michaelis, "mimeomai, mimētēs, s,"
t
ē
symmim Dictionary of
the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), Vol. 4, p. 669.
37 Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation," p. 403.
38 Ibid.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

 299

to external authority, the actions of the agents are more powerful than any
actions which they can conceive on the basis of their own determination.
Pauls demand is authoritative because it is legitimate.39
Intrinsic to the act of mimesis is the acknowledgment of the fact that the
legitimacy of authority stands apart from the charisma of the individual or
the structure of an institution. Mimesis is the subservience of personal will
to the responsibility to adhere to nature. The art analogy is once again

helpful, for a good tragedy is not good because the audience or critics
consider it to be good, but because it conforms to the nature of tragedy.
Its authority lies not within its own content, but in its relationship to a
form which is immutable, and hence, authoritative; the good tragedy par-
ticipates in the power of tragedy. In a similar manner, Pauls imitator par-
ticipates in the power of his divine likeness. Once the imitator acknowl-
edges Pauls authority, he or she shares in the power of that authority.
John Howard Schutz believes that &dquo;when others perceive this power cor-
rectly and act accordingly,&dquo;40they share in the same power with Paul and are
themselves authoritative. In terms of mimists, once one becomes an imi-
tator one concedes to the authority inherent within Pauls example and
thereby expresses the same authority in his or her own mimesis. Conse-
quently, the Philippians become co-imitators just as Paul himself is an imi-
tator. Paul praises those who have become imitators, for example the
Thessalonians, and exhorts them to serve others as examples. Those who
do not recognize his authority become the ruled, those over whom Paul
must exercise his power. So Paul exhorts the spiritually immature, such as
the Corinthians, to become imitators.
The authority of Pauls example lies in the fact that he concretely mani-
fests the ethic inherent to a life in Christ. Clearly Christ provides the su-
preme exemplar of self-renunciation, and Paul appeals to Christs ex-
ample. Paul, however, puts himself forward as the principal model pre-
cisely because of his emphasis upon the concrete. His activity is centred in
the context of the preaching of the gospel, the building of the Church
and the service of others. He demonstrates the various and sundry ways in
which the imitator may perform his or her mimesis. Moreover, the commu-
nities which he calls to be his imitators have witnessed his example. It
stands before them as a tangible representation of the object that Paul
himself imitates. Just as an object of art can teach one about beauty, Pauls
example teaches others about life in Christ.

39 This notion of legitimacy is articulated by Bengt Holmberg as "the quality of being in

accordance with the norm of rightness" in Paul and Power (Lund: C. K. W. Gleerup,
1978), p. 128.
40 John Howard Schütz, Paul and the Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1975), p. 200.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

300

When Paul wrote of imitating, he believed that a transcendent principle

determined the &dquo;rightness&dquo; of his conduct. He shared with the classical
Greeks the idea that human activity, whether art or ethics, could be a
mimesis of nature. In the conception of art, and even ethics, now prevalent
within modern society, mimisis of nature seems to be no longer possible
because the possibility of an immutable nature is questioned. The English
word &dquo;imitation&dquo; is not synonymous with mimesis; the modern horizon
and Pauls horizon do not overlap. By recognizing that mimsis is a process
with pedagogic and ethical possibilities, the modern interpeter under-
stands Pauls call to become imitators of him as a legitimate demand as
well as an effective means of living in Christ.

Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016