brant (1993) - the place of mimēsis in paul's thought

7/25/2019 Brant (1993) - The Place of Mimsis in Paul's Thought

1/16

285-

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

The place of mimesis inPauls thoughtJO-ANNA. BRANT

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.

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 inChrist. In the realm of art, imitation is academic, derivative, dull. Giventhe modern artists attempt to bring to expression the innovative and eventhe 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 therealm 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 asAr-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 objectof the mimesis rather than the process or activity in which Paul exhorts hisreader 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 ginesthebecome 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 ofAmsterdam, 1962), p. 211, claims thatimitation serves salvation and leads to direct imitation of Christ.

at UB Heidelberg on June 20, 2016sir.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/http://sir.sagepub.com/


2/16

286

ence of conversion, baptism, appropriation of tradition and the trials ofhis career as the exemplary model for the imitator.Although these stud-

ies illuminate aspects of the mimesis texts, all tend to focus upon a passiveunderstanding of mimesis, that is, how the imitator is like Paul.A survey ofGreek literature reveals a more active role for the imitator which Paul

shares. His intention in calling his readers imitators or exhorting them tobecome imitators comprehends the notion that an imitator engages in anact of mimesis, a process by which the imitator brings to expression an im-mutable principle. In Pauls thought, this principle is a particular aspectof 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 oursemantic horizon and allow us to shed any &dquo;spurious twist to the meaningof 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

Philippians3:17.~ The third

step providesan 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 itcan stand for either the act of imitation or the product of that act.6 Pauluses 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

Jesus 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 wordstudies without attending to the contextual meaning of the word, but some attention tothe possible semantic horizon is necessary.An exhaustive study of the use of mimeomaiand 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 epistleswill not enter into this discussion due to the serious doubts entertained by many schol-ars regarding their authenticity. On 2 Thessalonians, see I. Howard Marshall, 1 and 2Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 29-30; Marshall himself decides infavour of Pauls authorship. On Ephesians, see Marcus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1974), p. 36-39.6 See George Whalley, "On TranslatingAristotles Poetics," University of Toronto Quarterly,

39 (1969-70): 85.



3/16

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 mimemabecause it imitates, through its actions and appearance, the intelligibleworld, 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 tomake 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 heavenwould mean lightness and upwardness.... &dquo;9 Here mimesis is a processwhereby one expresses the essential characteristics of the object that oneimitates. Just as a word is not a copy of its object, the product of mimesis isnot necessarily a copy.Aristotle provides an understanding of the characteristics of mimesis and

the potential application of mimisis to education and ethics which revealsthat 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 heis far more imitative (mime-masi) and learns his first lessons by representingthings and all rejoice in the representation.&dquo;1 The comparison of humanbeings to animals accentuates the pedagogic value of mimesis and indicatesthat 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 andso

forth, and learns by the processof

bringing theidea 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, The Cratylus, 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.



4/16

288

WhenAristotle explores the principle that one learns about poetrythrough mimesis, the distinction between imitating and mimicry becomes

clear.According toAristotle, the discovery of tragedy began with improvisa-tion.11At first poets used trochaic meter with laughable results. When theybegan to imitate ordinary speech through the use of iambic meter, theydiscovered the meter appropriate to tragedy, for tragedy ultimately teachesabout the character of real people. In short, by making a tragedy the poetscame 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.13Aristotle 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, heor 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 paintingsomething beautiful, or of ugliness by painting something ugly. Given thatthe imitator is involved in the conscious effort to bring an idea to expres-

sion, the imitator should alsoact

responsibly,for he or she

providesan ex-

ample for others which may shape society either for the worse or the better.

Pauline mimesis

Just asAristotle, in calling a poet an imitator, does not mean that the poetadopts the qualities of the object he or she imitates, so Paul does notmean that the imitator is a mirror reflection of his or her object. Ratherhe means that one engages in an activity which brings an idea to expres-sion. Pauls exhortation to imitate addresses a

particularproblem. 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 thecase. 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 becomeimitators. 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.



5/16

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. 16According to Stanley this is illustrated by Romans 6:34; Paul un-derstands himself to be an imitator of Christ by virtue of his participationin 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 textsstand separate from the baptism texts. Paul addresses his exhortation tothose already baptized; as a result of baptism, the one who is baptized isresurrected into a new life. 18 Baptism places one in a new condition, a newcreation.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 EdvinLarrson, through the process of baptism the glory of God is restored; oneis 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 ofGod. Texts such as 1 Corinthians 15:44-49 and Philippians 2:5-11 indicatethat for Paul the Gottesebenbildlichkeit of Christ is precisely the image towhich 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

imageof God, his or her behaviour is not

alwaysin 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, thetransformation into the image of Christ, is conferred at baptism, a processin 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 hernew iden-

tity. This act entails the adoption of the ethic of self-renunciation whichderives 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 Ibid., p. 132.18 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.



6/16

290

tivity, the events and society one shapes, must be done in conformity withsome principle rather than in response to circumstance or through the as-sertion of ones will. The divine likeness of humanity is not mastery nor isit wilfulness; it is humility, weakness and obedience. Mimesis requires thatone 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 hisown behaviour to the image of Christ.All of the following texts contain the same notion of mimesis. Mimisis is

a

processin which the imitator

expresses, throughthe subordination of

his or her interests to those of others, the ideal represented by Christ. Inmost 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 inAchaia. ( 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 withinthe 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, andas a result they are persecuted; therefore they resemble Paul. In fact, theiract of mimesis requires a greater initiative on their part than this under-

standing credits them. They act upon the ethical principle exemplified byPaul, the Lord and the churches inJudea that the interest of others super-sedes ones own. Clearly, they have engaged in active missions in Mac-edonia andAchaia (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 withimitation. 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.



7/16

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 of1 Thessalonians 1:6, then the Thessalonians suffered at one particulartime. 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 anartist. 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 asimitator. The second problem with Bests conclusion is that there is a lackof congruency between the act of conversion and the list of models which

Paul names. While Paul, Silvanus and Timothy all experience the &dquo;comingof the gospel,&dquo; this statement does not hold true for &dquo;the Lord.&dquo; Stanleyattempts to reconcile the inclusion of the Lord with the conclusion that

the Thessalonians imitate Paul by accepting the gospel. He suggests thatPaul adds &dquo;and the Lord&dquo; as an afterthought.22 Paul intends the Lord andthe gospel to stand in conjunction, for when one accepts the gospel, one

accepts the Lord.23 This act of exegeticaljuggling hinges upon the conclu-sion that Paul intends the act of acceptance as the object of mimesis andthat his sentence structure is careless.

The

questfor

congruency

between the imitators and their

examplesleads 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;Forwhen 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 theirfaith and endure suffering.25 He stresses, nonetheless, the idea that Paul

calls them imitators because he observes the resemblance between theirsuffering 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 ofApostolicTradition," Biblica, 40 (1959): 866.

23 Ibid.

24 De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, p. 96.25 Ibid., p. 103.

26 Ibid., p. 124.



8/16

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 thatthe 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 arenot necessarily passive victims. The equation of &dquo;imitation&dquo; with sufferingaffliction 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 context of 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 thatthe Thessalonians are imitators, Paul mentions that they are familiar withwhat 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, andthe 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

takingcare of her children

(Thess.

2:7).Then he adds that he &dquo;worked night and day&dquo; in order not to burden theThessalonians ( Thess. 2:9). Paul stands as the principal example. He has

adopted an ethic of self-renunciation in order to manifest a life in Christand has provided the concrete example of how one should go about beingan imitator.

The second mimesis text names the churches in Judea as the example,but no explicit reference is made to the activities which characterize thosecommunities. Here it is necessary to reconstruct the situation in which the

Thessalonians earned the title of imitator. The epistle contains a numberof allusions to the Thessalonians activity which leads to persecution. Thefirst hint occurs in the introduction when Paul uses the same vocabularyto describe the Thessalonians activity as he habitually uses to describe hisown 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 hisstatement 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.



9/16

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

companionsare

examplesof

peoplewho

denytheir own desires or

privi-leges in the interest of others. Their behaviour reflects an ethic which theThessalonians imitate; that is, they express this ethic in their own

behaviour.As a result of the Thessalonians mimesis, they spread the wordor gospel not merely by speaking but by the example of their own con-

duct, their willingness to speak in spite of persecution.

1 Corinthians

I 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 Iteach 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 pleaseeveryone 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 theimitator. 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



10/16

294

the Church ( Cor. 1:12) , and they boast of the superiority of particularleaders (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 theimitators 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 isto educate them or bring them to a proper understanding of their statusin 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 notmake use of these rights (9:15). He explains, &dquo;I have become all things toall men, that I might by all means save some&dquo; (9:22). The logic of this actof 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 thatone should cease to seek ones own good, rather one should seek the

goodof ones

neighbour.Paul

exemplifies humilityin 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 hingesupon his relationship to Christ. In the first mimesis text, Paul identifies hisconduct with &dquo;my ways in Christ,&dquo; and, in the second, he claims that he isan &dquo;imitator&dquo; of Christ. How one is to understand the relationship of Pauland 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 Iam 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 imitatesChrist.29 De Boer argues that Pauls ways in Christ refer to Christs ways;3othus, the phrase in 1 Corinthians 11:1 indicates that Paul and Christ are

interchangeable. Boykin Sanders suggests that &dquo;my ways in Christ&dquo; refersto the communal existence which results from baptism into the body ofChrist.31 Pauls ways in Christ promote unity, and to be an imitator ofChrist 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.



11/16

295

introduced by boasting in the name of particular leaders. &dquo;32 In light ofthis 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, forChrists 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 areseveral statements within the epistle that suggest that Paul recognizes the

pedagogic value of this process. In direct conjunction with the first mimesistext, 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 inChrist&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; Paulclaims 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-

propriatemanner.

Immediatelybefore 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 conductthemselves in a manner comparable to one who is spiritually mature butwill 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. Byimitating Pauls example, the imitator not only behaves with humility, heor

shecomes

to understand what humilitymeans.

Mimesis, as a process ofeducation, is neither the Skinnerian education of the late 20th centurynor 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 ofhis or her actions. The actions should be deliberate and self-shaping in or-der to realize the goal of spiritual maturity. Simple mimicry cannotachieve 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 bydrawing the body, the Christian learns what a spiritual adult is by acting asa 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.



12/16

296

behave as people of the flesh. They are, then, capable of comprehendingthe wisdom of God.

Philippians

Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according tothe 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 referringto 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 bythe 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 eschatologicalsignificance 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 whichPauls use of mimesis is possible: an order must exist to which the mimesiscan conform. Secondly, the hymn serves to illustrate the ethical principleof self-renunciation which mimesis brings to expression by emphasizing thebehaviour 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 theform of a servant (2:7-8).

The issue at hand is the

relationshipbetween 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 towhich 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 repetitionof this soteriological event.

33 This is my own translation; the original Greek text reads symmim&emacr;tai mou ginesthe.



13/16

297

Some commentators start at the power which Paul assigns the role ofimitator. 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 powerwhich is necessary to put the appeal into effect.

&dquo;34 Hookers problem withthe mimesis text reflects the failure of the modern notion of imitation to con-

vey the meaning that Pauls use of symmimetai intends. The Philippians donot mimic Paul; they take the ideal that Pauls actions represent and apply itto their own behaviour. Pauls emphasis lies on the concrete manifestationofhonour and not upon some abstract ideal of a state of perfection.

Paul emphasizes the coordinated effort of the Philippians to achievetheir goal by calling them symmimitai. The mimesis of the Philippiansstands 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 actwith a common purpose rather than think the same thoughts as others orshare a common attitude which is not necessarily expressed in conduct.35The principle of subordinating personal interests and privileges for the

good of the community is inherent within the concept of one mind.Mimesis is a

processwhich 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 anumber of artisans which results in the completion of a single project.The Philippians are co-imitators, not because they perform the same taskor 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 asthe 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, andthereby to circumvent the need of Christs redemptive act. Instead, mimesisserves to produce the appropriate expression of the reality made possibleby the crucifixion and exaltation of Christ. Pauls concern is with concreteaction. 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 imitatiowith 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 RomanLaw (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 particulargoal.



14/16

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 ofone 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, thebehaviour that they exhibit is similar. The Thessalonians, for example,also preach the gospel. In other cases, the activity can be quite differentfrom the particular example Paul provides. The Corinthians are called toexercise their own judgment in determining which behaviour best suitsthe spiritual health of their community. Mimesis is then a substantivemeans of realizing Christian goals.The question of the irony of Pauls seemingly boastful claim that he is

an example worthy of imitation maynow 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 apostolicauthority as a mandate to command and admonish and, so consequently,to be obeyed.36Adele Reinhartz locates the call in the context of Paulsself-defence of his apostleship. 37 Reinhartz argues that Pauls call for hisimitators to express humility, a humility which he himself manifests, miti-

gates the inherent immodesty in his demand. 38 Reinhartz is correct in herreconciliation of the paradox; however, the understanding of mimesis pro-vided above lends further insight into the nature of the authority that Paulclaims. 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 weaknessand humility. There is a humility inherent in the act of mimesis which con-cedes that any appropriate act reflects an order that already exists beyondones 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 mustconcede that personal interests do not define &dquo;legitimacy.&dquo; By adhering

36 W. Michaelis, "mimeomai, mim&emacr;t&emacr;s, symmim&emacr;t&emacr;s," in G. Kittel, ed., Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), Vol. 4, p. 669.

37 Reinhartz, "On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation," p. 403.38 Ibid.



15/16

299

to external authority, the actions of the agents are more powerful than anyactions which they can conceive on the basis of their own determination.

Pauls demand is authoritative because it is legitimate.39Intrinsic to the act of mimesis is the acknowledgment of the fact that the

legitimacy of authority stands apart from the charisma of the individual orthe structure of an institution. Mimesis is the subservience of personal willto the responsibility to adhere to nature. The art analogy is once againhelpful, for a good tragedy is not good because the audience or criticsconsider 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 aform 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, they share in the same power with Paul and arethemselves authoritative. &dquo;40 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

Philippiansbecome co-imitators

justas Paul himself is an imi-

tator. Paul praises those who have become imitators, for example theThessalonians, and exhorts them to serve others as examples. Those whodo not recognize his authority become the ruled, those over whom Paulmust exercise his power. So Paul exhorts the spiritually immature, such asthe 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 forwardas

the principal model pre-cisely because of his emphasis upon the concrete. His activity is centred inthe context of the preaching of the gospel, the building of the Churchand the service of others. He demonstrates the various and sundry ways inwhich the imitator may perform his or her mimesis. Moreover, the commu-nities which he calls to be his imitators have witnessed his example. Itstands before them as a tangible representation of the object that Paulhimself 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 inaccordance with the norm of rightness" in Paul and Power (Lund: C. K. W. Gleerup,1978), p. 128.

40 John Howard Schtz, Paul and theAnatomy ofApostolicAuthority (London: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1975), p. 200.



16/16

300

When Paul wrote of imitating, he believed that a transcendent principledetermined the &dquo;rightness&dquo; of his conduct. He shared with the classical

Greeks the idea that human activity, whether art or ethics, could be amimesis of nature. In the conception of art, and even ethics, now prevalentwithin modern society, mimisis of nature seems to be no longer possiblebecause the possibility of an immutable nature is questioned. The Englishword &dquo;imitation&dquo; is not synonymous with mimesis; the modern horizon

and Pauls horizon do not overlap. By recognizing that mimsis is a processwith pedagogic and ethical possibilities, the modern interpeter under-stands Pauls call to become imitators of him as a legitimate demand aswell as an effective means of living in Christ.

t UB H id lb J 20 2016i bD l d d f

brant (1993) - the place of mimēsis in paul's thought

Documents