place of mimesis in

Pauls thought
The

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 holding himself up as an example Paul seems to be contradicting his own command 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 believe 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 selffulfilment. Pauls understanding of imitation clearly differs from this current view. The analogy between art and behaviour is helpful, for just as Aristotle could define art as an imitation (mimesis) of nature, Paul could consider 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 Hellenistic Greek literature often holds up exemplary figures as objects of imitation, 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. Stanley focusses upon Pauls attempt to lead his readers to share his experi-

Adele Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation: mimetai mou ginesthe—
become imitators of me, Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses, 16 (1987): 395.
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.

Brant is a graduate of McMaster University teaching at Goshen College in

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

Jo-Ann
IN.

Goshen,

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

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

his career as the exemplary model for the imitator. Although these studies 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 immutable 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 legitimacy of his own conduct.
This study will proceed through three steps. The first entails an examination 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 second step of the study is then a general discussion of Pauls meaning, followed by an exegetical examination of 1 Thessalonians 1:6-7; 2:14; 1 Corinthians 4:16; 11:1; and Philippians 3:17.~ The third step provides an account of the legitimacy of Pauls use of himself as an example for the imience

tator.

Mimesis
The

English word &dquo;imitation&dquo; obscures the meaning of mimesis, because it

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
can

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,
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 pa3

Jesus

per.
5

2 Thessalonians and Ephesians contain cognates of mimeomai, these epistles

into this discussion due to the serious doubts entertained by many scholars 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.
See George Whalley, "On Translating Aristotles Poetics," University of Toronto Quarterly,
39 (1969-70): 85.

Although
will not

enter

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

287

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 perception 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 appear 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 Platos Cratylus, however, Socrates provides a description of the mimisis of
sign language in which no copy or mimicry is implied. According to Socrates, 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
noun

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 repetition 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 recognizes the physical attributes of which a horse consists. In play, a child represents a ruler by enacting the role of a king or a queen and, as a result,
learns the nature of governing.
not

Plato, The Timaeus, 48e, translated by Benjamin Jowett, in Edith Hamilton and
Plato: The Collected Dialogues (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1961), p. 1176.

See

Huntington Cairns, eds.,

8
9

10

The Jeurish

War 7.142.

Cratylus, 432a, translated by Benjamin Jowett, in Edith. Hamilton and Huntington Cairns, eds., Plato: The Collected Dialogues (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1961), p. 466.
Aristotle, Poetics, 1448b4.2, translated by W. Hamilton Fyfe (London: William HeinePlato,

The

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 improvisation.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, fundamental to the development of human activity and understanding.
Aristotles treatment of mimesis also highlights the ethical decision inherent 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 discussion of tragedy that people enjoy looking at the products of mimesis and
thereby learn about the original object from the representation or example.&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 example 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 expression, the imitator should also act responsibly, for he or she provides an example 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 expression. 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 function 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
12
13
14
15

Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,
Ibid.,

1448b4.7, p. 15.
1449a4.13-21, p. 17-19.
1448a2.1-7, p. 9-11.
1448b4.1-6, p. 13-15.
1448b4.8, p. 15.
Downloaded from sir.sagepub.com at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016

289

Stanley predicates his analysis of the mimsis texts upon the

presupposition that Pauls entire experience of Christ is the object of imitation. 16 According to Stanley this is illustrated by Romans 6:34; Paul understands himself to be an imitator of Christ by virtue of his participation
in Christs death and resurrection. 17 The candidate for baptism then imitates Paul by taking on the image of Christ. Although there is an undeniable 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 transformation 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 conforming. 20 Pauls problem is that although baptism is a death to sin where the believer 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 something 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 identity. 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.
David M.

The mime-sis texts focus upon one of Pauls central concerns, the conmanifestation of ones status in Christ in his or her actions. By callto become imitators Paul expresses the notion that ones acbelievers
ing
crete

"Imitation in Pauls Letters," p. 131.

132.
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.
16
17
18

Stanley,
Ibid., p.

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

290

and society one shapes, must be done in conformity with

rather
than in response to circumstance or through the asprinciple
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 adhere 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 imitator 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.

tivity,

the

events

some

1 Thessalonians
And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for in spite of persecution you received the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example 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 compatriots 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 commentators 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 supersedes ones own. Clearly, they have engaged in active missions in Macedonia 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 particular point in the past, the moment they received the gospel.21 Bests proposal 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:

Black, 1972), p. 77.

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

Adam and Charles

291
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 probable 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 intends the Lord and
Paul adds &dquo;and the Lord&dquo; as an
in
the gospel to stand
conjunction, for when one accepts the gospel, one
accepts the Lord.23 This act of exegetical juggling hinges upon the conclusion 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 actually 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 affliction ; 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
He stresses, nonetheless, the idea that Paul
faith and endure
calls them imitators because he observes the resemblance between their
suffering and his own.26 De Boer focusses upon the word affliction (thlibesthai) in his interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:6 on the basis of his interpretation of 3:4. By doing this, he ignores several significant components of both verses. The first of these components is that the Thessaloni-

Paul

uses

...

afterthought.22

suffering.25

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
ans

22

David M.

Stanley,

" Become Imitators of Me: The Pauline

Conception

Tradition," Biblica, 40 (1959): 866.

23
24
25
26

Ibid.
De Boer, The Imitation
Ibid., p. 103.
Ibid., p. 124.

of Paul, p. 96.

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

of

Apostolic

292

authenticity of the Thessalonians faith.27 The Thessalonians joy, howspite of their affliction, that is, the affliction is inconsequential ; it does not deter their activity. 1 Thessalonians 3:4 implies that
the Thessalonians anticipated their affliction. Again, there may be two reasons 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 activity that incurred the opposition of others.
The proper understanding of how the Thessalonians are imitators in
the

ever, may exist in

of 1 Thessalonians 1:6 lies in an examination of Pauls own deof 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.

the

context

scription

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
out from Judea and hindered them from spreading the gospel to the gentiles. The nature of the
opposition which the Thessalonians encounter hinders them from speaking the gospel. Paul, his associates, the churches of Judea and the Thessalonians 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 expansion 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 apparent that the comparison of activity cannot alone supply an adequate explanation of the manner in which the Thessalonians are imitators. Paul indicates that the common element is a principle rather than a one-to-one correspondence between the activity of the Thessalonians and their examples. 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 principle of placing the interests of others before ones own that guides their actions.
Several aspects of the mimesis texts now attract attention. Paul and his
companions are examples of people who deny their own desires or privileges 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 conduct, their willingness to speak in spite of persecution.

2:14). The Jews had driven Paul and company

1 Corinthians

appeal 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)
I

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 )

Give

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 problem is a misunderstanding of wisdom; the Corinthians have confused
Gods wisdom with a worldly sort which lends individuals power or nobility. 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 second consequence of the problem. Puffed up with their so-called wisdom,
the Corinthians conduct themselves inappropriately. Of those who consider themselves to be spiritually superior, some deny their partners marital 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 lawful, 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 commentators. 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
conception 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 establishes the communal principle and excludes the divisiveness which is

Become Imitators of Me," p. 874.

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

29

Stanley,

30
31

De

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 discord which results from self-interested boasting and jealousy, restores the
unity inherent in Christs way.
Because the Corinthians, unlike the Thessalonians, have not been imitators, Paul exhorts them to become imitators. Although Paul does not explicitly 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. Earlier 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 metaphorically as &dquo;solid food&dquo; (3:2). Evidently, in order to progress from &dquo;infants&dquo; to spiritual maturity the Corinthians must begin to behave in an appropriate manner. Immediately before and after the mimesis text, Paul indicates 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 educator 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 order to realize the goal of spiritual maturity. Simple mimicry cannot
achieve such an ideal. In mime-sis, a pattern or order, which becomes apparent to the imitator in the performance of mimesis, stands behind the example. 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 imitators, 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.

the wisdom of God.

They are, then, capable

of comprehending

Philippians
Brothers and sisters, join in
the example you have in us.

imitating me,

and observe those who live

according to

(Phil. 3:17)

Paul writes the letter to the Philippians from prison to express his appreciation for a gift which they have sent and to assure them that his internment 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 interests 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;coimitators&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 functions. First, it is a description of a soteriological drama, the eschatological
significance of which, in reference to Pauls concept of mimisis, is that it effects 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 Philippians (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 significance of the event and Christs role as an example for the imitator. Because 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 independently from his soteriological function, but his example is in harmony
with the soteriological result. The Philippians mimesis may result in the expression 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 convey 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 order 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 appropriate 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 soteriological significance of the Christ event. The individual, in the role of imitator, 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 aspect of a specific action within the life of Christ rather than try to create

34

35

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 rewith conformitas.
places imitatio
Contra Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation," p. 400. J. Paul Sampley, 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 societas, 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 action 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 impotency 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 consensus recognizes that the call to be imitators depends upon Pauls understanding 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

apostleship. 37

Reinhartz argues that Pauls call for his

self-defence of his
imitators to express humility, a humility which he himself manifests, mitigates the inherent immodesty in his demand. 38 Reinhartz is correct in her
reconciliation of the paradox; however, the understanding of mimesis provided above lends further insight into the nature of the authority that Paul
claims. The demand for humility finds its legitimacy in the congruency between 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 concedes 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 order 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

37
38

W. Michaelis, "mimeomai, mimētēs, s,"

ē in G. Kittel, ed., Theological
t
ē
symmim
the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), Vol. 4, p. 669.
Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation," p. 403.
Ibid.

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

Dictionary of

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 participates in the power of tragedy. In a similar manner, Pauls imitator participates in the power of his divine likeness. Once the imitator acknowledges Pauls authority, he or she shares in the power of that authority.
John Howard Schutz believes that &dquo;when others perceive this power correctly and act accordingly,&dquo;40they share in the same power with Paul and are
In terms of mimists, once one becomes an imithemselves authoritative.
tator one concedes to the authority inherent within Pauls example and
thereby expresses the same authority in his or her own mimesis. Consequently, the Philippians become co-imitators just as Paul himself is an imitator. 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 manifests the ethic inherent to a life in Christ. Clearly Christ provides the supreme exemplar of self-renunciation, and Paul appeals to Christs example. Paul, however, puts himself forward as the principal model precisely 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 communities 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

40

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.
John Howard Schütz, Paul and
University Press, 1975), p. 200.

the

Anatomy of Apostolic Authority (London: Cambridge

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 understands 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