Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Pauls thought
JO-ANN A. BRANT
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.
285-
© 1993 Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion / Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses
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.
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.
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
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.
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-
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.
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.
or they gave it occasion to occur. In the latter case, the Thessalonians are
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
27 Ibid., p. 96.
28 1 Cor. 3:8; 2 Cor. 10:15, 11:23; 1 Thess. 3:5.
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-
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
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
tators, the Corinthians learn the nature of spiritual maturity and cease to
32 Ibid., p. 166.
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
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-
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
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.
Conclusions
sus recognizes that the call to be imitators depends upon Pauls under-
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.