Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). The rhetoric which Paul utilizes here is called “mimesis,” and it is a staple of ancient authors and speakers of all stripes. Ancient rhetoricians, including the authors of the NT, argued their cases and achieved their literary and rhetorical goals using mimesis.¹Benjamin Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” in Paul in the Greco-Roman World, A Handbook,revised ed.,ed. J. Paul Sampley (T&T Clark, 2016), 1:169–80. Fiore provides an overview of the uses of mimesis in ancient rhetoric. Cf. Charles A. Gieschen, “A Christian Identity in Pagan Thessalonica: The Imitation of Paul’s Cruciform Life,” CTQ 72 (2008): 4–12. This neither is the only place where Paul makes use of mimeticrhetoric (cf. Gal 4:20; 1 Cor 4:16) nor is Paul the only author in the NT to use mimetic rhetoric (1 Pet 5:1–5; Heb 13:7).

Paul’s mimetic rhetoric is not unscrutinized. In 1991, Elizabeth Castelli leveled a formidable critique against Paul’s pattern of imitative exhortation. “The notion of mimesis,” says Castelli, “functions in Paul’s letters as a strategy of power. That is, it articulates and rationalizes as true and natural a particular set of power relations within the social formation of early Christian communities.”²Elizabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul, A Discourse of Power (Westminster John Knox, 1991), 15. Paul’s imitative commands, such as those found in 1 Corinthians 11:1, reinforce power structures. As a self-described Foucauldian, she looks askance at such authoritative relationships. Does Castelli have a point? Does mimesis reinforce authority structures in the NT church? Should students of the New Testament reconsider such mimetic relationships? What does this mean for Christians today in a world which questions the very legitimacy of authority?

This paper considers Castelli’s claim that Paul’s mimeticrhetoric reinforces authority structures. First, however, we look at Castelli’s criticism in more detail, followed by the reception of her thesis. Then we compare her analysis with both the Pauline corpus and the broader NT. While this paper agrees with Castelli that mimetic rhetoric does, in fact, strengthen authority relationships, it also identifies ways in which her analysis is lacking, and, therefore, her account of authority relationships in the local church is, at best, deficient.

1. Castelli and Her Reception

Castelli begins her critique of Paul’s mimetic rhetoric by defining imitation as a “movement from difference toward similarity.”³Castelli, Imitating Paul, 21. By commending or commanding imitation, “sameness is not merely described, but rather it is prescribed.”⁴Castelli, Imitating Paul, 22. This is, in her mind, paradoxical, for the more two things resemble one another, the more their distinctions become manifest.⁵Castelli, Imitating Paul, 22. Imitation is, inherently, about power, then, “insofar as the model represents the standard toward which its copies move.”⁶Castelli, Imitating Paul, 22. This relationship is both hierarchical and asymmetrical. In her view, this dimension of Paul’s imitative power rhetoric is “skirted” by NT scholarship.⁷Castelli, Imitating Paul, 23–33.

Castelli explores aesthetic imitation, cosmological imitation, the imitation of God, imitation in kingship, and educational and ethical mimesis in antiquity.⁸Castelli, Imitating Paul, 59–85. She concludes, first, that mimesis is inherently hierarchical in the ancient world. Second, authority is “foregrounded” in such mimetic relationships. Third, mimesis reinforces the ancient world’s value of sameness over difference.⁹Castelli, Imitating Paul, 86. Assuming Paul fits within this Greco-Roman context, she turns her attention to Paul.

Castelli turns her attention to six Pauline texts and finds in them that his mimetic rhetoric “evokes for a first-century audience the whole range of associations” which she had explored elsewhere (1 Thess 1:6–7; 2:14; Phil 3:17; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Gal 4:12).¹⁰Castelli, Imitating Paul, 89–117, esp. 89. She concludes that Paul’s expectation that his readers would become his imitators “constructs the early communities within a hierarchical economy of sameness which both appropriates the members of the early communities and reinscribes Paul’s privileged position as natural.”¹¹Castelli, Imitating Paul, 117. Whether Paul intended it or not, he was making use of a “political strategy”¹²Castelli, Imitating Paul, 129. which conflicts with presentations of Paul as establishing a “new, egalitarian community.”¹³Castelli, Imitating Paul, 130. The mimetic drive towards sameness reinforces an institutional movement with power relations.¹⁴Castelli, Imitating Paul, 131.

Castelli has been repeatedly critiqued.¹⁵Cf. Cornelis Bennema, Imitation in Early Christianity, Mimesis and Religious Ethical Formation (Eerdmans, 2025), 229–30, esp. n. 4. Kathy Ehrensperger, “‘Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ’: A Hidden Discourse of Power and Domination in Paul?” LTQ 38 (2003): 241–61. Adam C. Koontz, “The Imitation of Paul in the Greco-Roman World” (PhD diss., Temple University, 2020), 15–18, 111–38. Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” 169–95. Matthew Lewis LaMaster, “Imitation and Exemplarity in Hebrews” (PhD diss., Concordia Theological Seminary, 2024), 126–28. Victor Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director (Paternoster, 2007), 181–218. Andrew D. Clarke, “‘Be Imitators of Me’: Paul’s Model of Leadership,” TynBul 49 (1998): 329–60. A. K. M. Adam, “Walk This Way: Repetition, Difference, and the Imitation of Christ,” Int (2001): 19–33. Dustin W. Ellington, “Imitating Paul’s Relationship to the Gospel: 1 Corinthians 8.1–11.1,” JSNT 33 (2011): 303–15. James R. Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity: Paul’s inversion of a Social Icon,” Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament, Claremont Studies in New Testament and Christian Origins 1(Brill, 2013), 218–19. On the whole, Cornelis Bennema correctly observes that Castelli’s approach “has not stood the test of time.”¹⁶Bennema, Imitation, 230. Nevertheless, it is worth asking whether Castelli’s contention that Paul deploys imitative rhetoric in order to reinforce authority structures has any basis in the New Testament. This inquiry is worthwhile because a denial of Castelli’s thesis likely portends revising or, at least, reassessing the assumed existence of any authority relationships among early Christians and, consequently, the need for such authority among Christians today. Three assessments of Castelli’s claim concerning the relationship of imitation and authority are noteworthy.

First, Andrew Clarke critiques Castelli’s characterization of Paul’s mimeticcommands as a “clear misreading of their context.”¹⁷Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 332–33 While not denying Pauline authority, Clarke argues that Paul’s imitative assertions are mainly aimed at ethical standards.¹⁸Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 332–33. These commands are grounded in the “father-child” relationship.¹⁹Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 343–44. Clarke argues that Paul and Luke use mimesis to point attention away from Paul and onto Jesus as the ultimate example.²⁰Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 359.

Second, Kathy Ehrensperger grants Castelli’s point that imitation does reinforce a hierarchy of power.²¹Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 257. When seen within the specific Pauline contexts in which the mimetic rhetoric is deployed, however, this hierarchy is self-obsoletizing.²²Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 257–58. Thus, imitation is deployed to reinforce authority in such a way that this authority will no longer become necessary. While Castelli may be correct in the short term, in the long term her thesis fails.

Third, in Victor Copan’s extensive critique, he counters Castelli by noting that all of Paul’s imitative commands concern Paul’s spiritual paternity.²³Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 209. Harrison, “Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 219. Harrison argues that Copan’s assessment is overly reductionistic. Copan points out that Paul’s imitative commands are often couched in his own selflessness.²⁴Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 210. Cf. Bennema, Imitation in Early Christianity, 305. He thus recasts any authoritative language in the mimetic language as “the intensity of Paul’s desire for the welfare of his spiritual children.”²⁵Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 216. Castelli, therefore, misunderstands the overall context and meaning of his rhetoric.

Castelli argues that Paul’s imitative language is deployed in such a way that it will bolster authority relationships within a community. Clarke, Ehrensperger, and Copan have offered responses. Clarke connects mimesis mainly towards ethical standards such as Christlikeness. Ehrensperger argues that Paul’s imitative commands may reinforce authority in the short-term, but in the long-term it makes authority unnecessary. Copan submits that any authoritative rhetoric in Paul’s mimeticlanguage is best understood as reflecting his paternal relationship, which is to say, they do not concern ecclesiastical authority. All apparently argue that any authority in Paul’s mimetic rhetoric is negligible at best, and that, therefore, Castelli is fundamentally flawed. These dismissals of Castelli’s contention concerning the relationship of mimesis and authority, however, contribute to an erosion of apostolic authority in the early church and pastoral authority in the present. Such erosion is acceptable if evident in the texts of the NT. The rest of this paper contends, however, that the NT’s mimeticrhetoric actually serves to strengthen authority structures and that Castelli’s contention should be reassessed.

2. Imitation Strengthens Authority Structures

Castelli’s study highlighted six texts in which Paul commended the imitation of himself (1 Thess 1:6–7; 2:14; Phil 3:17; 1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Gal 4:12).²⁶Castelli, Imitating Paul, 89–117. When Paul urges the Corinthians to be imitators of him (1 Cor 4:16), he sends Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his ways in Christ, per his teaching (4:17) as a “proxy.”²⁷Bennema, Imitation in Early Christianity, 257. Paul’s warning to the arrogant among the Corinthians is that he will come personally, for “the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power” (4:19). Thus, when he later furnishes his own example of doing all to the glory of God (cf. 10:31–11:1), it is under the premise that he will visit them soon and exert his authority.²⁸Cf. R. Gregory Jenks, Paul and His Mortality, Imitating Christ in the Face of Death, Bulletin of Biblical Research Supplement 12 (Eisenbrauns, 2015), 179. “When he spoke about mortality or any other subject within the realm of Christian theology, his position and authority were foundational.” Michael Jensen, “Imitating Paul, Imitating Christ: How Does Imitation Work as a Moral Concept?” Chm 124.1 (2010): 23. “It is not that Paul completely eschews any pattern of relationship with the Corinthians that recognizes his authoritative role as Christ’s appointed servant.” Even the fatherhood metaphor Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 4:16 implies his authoritative position with the Corinthians.²⁹Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 249. Even Ehrensperger, who is not inclined to agree with Castelli, admits this, though she argues the hierarchical relationship has an element of flexibility. “This points up the authoritative role that Paul’s imitatio played in the formation of those he evangelized.”³⁰Linda Belleville, “‘Imitate Me, Just as I Imitate Christ’: Discipleship in the Corinthian Correspondence,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Eerdmans, 1996), 124.

Similarly, Paul’s encouragement to the Philippians to be “co-imitators” of him (συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, Phil 3:17) is spoken under the premise that, in due time, he himself will likely appear (1:27–30) in all his authority. Paul’s commendation of his own example in 1 Thessalonians 1:6–7 and 2:14 not only has similar connotations (cf. 1 Thess 2:17–3:7), but it also commends the example of the Thessalonians compared to other brothers in Macedonia and Achaia, advancing their own position (1:7). Galatians 4:12 also seems to be written under the specter of his eventual return as well (cf. Gal 4:18).

Several things are clear from these brief observations. First, Paul’s exhortations to imitate himself are backed by his authority (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Gal 4:12; Phil 3:17), given the premise of his eventual physical return. Second, the imitation of Paul is, therefore, an acknowledgement of this authority. Third, Paul exhorts his readers to imitate him in such a way that it will reinforce his authority.³¹Cf. Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (Yale University Press, 2003), 124. While it is too much to claim that every imitative relationship and all imitative rhetoric is authoritative, it is reasonable to suggest that other authoritative relationships are potentially strengthened by mimesis,including the relationship a pastor enjoys with his flock.³²Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 222–45. Harrison is persuasive that mimesis was a central rhetorical tool used throughout antiquity to bolster authority in a variety of settings including monuments, biographies, and edicts, among others. Cf. Jason Weaver, “Paul’s Call to Imitation: The Rhetorical Function of the Theme of Imitation in Its Epistolary Context” (PhD. diss., The Catholic University of America, 2013), 198–210. Weaver argues that this mimetic rhetoric “establishes a new set of community relationships.”³³Weaver, “Paul’s Call to Imitation,” i. It seems difficult to deny that Paul uses mimetic rhetoric to reinforce his authority within local churches. This, at least, seems to vindicate Castelli’s argument for an authoritative dimension to mimesis. Her analysis, however, falters in at least four ways.

2.1. Christian Mimesisand the Limitation of Authority

Castelli’s claim that “Paul does appear at times to confuse his own position with that of Christ or God” and is, therefore, a “confusion of identity”³⁴Castelli, Imitating Paul, 112. is highly contestable.³⁵Cf. Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 206–7. Adam, “Walk this Way,” 22–30. Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 243–45. Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 24. It is true that when Paul points to his own example, it typically is in a context in which Paul’s relationship with Christ is emphasized.³⁶Cf. Jenks, Paul and His Mortality, 195. So, for example, Paul refers to “my ways in Christ” when telling the Corinthians to “be imitators of me” (1 Cor 4:16–17). This is reinforced by Paul’s later “be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (11:1). Nothing, however, indicates that this is a confusion of identity. While assuming this faulty supposition, Castelli fails to note that these explicit references to Christ’s example could have other purposes.

One such purpose is the limitation it places on the authority it reinforces. By placing his own example in such close reference to Christ’s, Paul not only reinforces his authority, but he also provides a measuring stick by which the Corinthians might assess his example.³⁷Belleville, “Imitate Me,” 122. “It is, therefore, reasonable to think that Paul had in mind moral standards that he himself observed in his own life and enjoined in a normative fashion in his teaching…” “His call to imitation,” says Copan, “has legitimacy and authority on the basis that he continues to ‘discipline himself.’”³⁸Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 245. In other words, he is simultaneously reinforcing his authority and providing accountability by limiting the very authority which he seeks to reinforce.³⁹Cf. LaMaster, “Imitation and Exemplarity in Hebrews,” 127. One could fairly say that the mimetic chain Paul establishes reinforces the derivative nature of his own authority.⁴⁰Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 29–30. “Paul’s use of mimesis occurs in the context of his authoritative apostolic address to the churches (e.g. 1 Cor. 4). He passes on an imitation of Christ that is refracted through the lens of the gospel which he was authoritatively commissioned to preach: he only has authority (as he sees it) as it derives from this source.” Cf. Bennema, Imitation In Early Christianity, 260–61.

The other texts Castelli references function similarly. Consider Philippians 3:17, where Paul instructs the Philippians to be “co-imitators” of him and to walk according to the “example” or “pattern” which they had in Paul and his associates (συμμιμηταί μου γίνεσθε, ἀδελφοί, καὶ σκοπεῖτε τοὺς οὕτω περιπατοῦντας καθὼς ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς). Yet, this follows after Paul’s personal description in Philippians 3:12–16, where Paul states that he himself has not yet attained what he desires. Likewise, after his admonition in Philippians 3:17, Paul refers to the final judgment of the wicked (3:18–19) and the inheritance of the saints (3:20–21). Paul’s self-reference to imitation gives the Philippians a standard by which to assess him and places him under the same judgment that others will receive.

Any message Paul’s example reflects is measured against Christ’s example and message. Galatians 4:12 is written after Christ’s virtuous love (2:20) is given as the ultimate example for the fruit of the Spirit (5:22–23). Likewise, Paul’s example in Philippians 3:17 follows admonitions in Philippians 2:1–4 and the ultimate exemplarity he attributes to Christ (2:5–11).⁴¹Bennema, Imitation in Early Christianity, 268–74. Paul, says Mark Keown, needed “to embody the message.”⁴²Mark Keown, “The Christ-Pattern for Social Relationships: Jesus as Exemplar in Philippians and Other Pauline Epistles,” in Paul and His Social Relations, ed. Stanley Porter and Christopher Land, PAST 7 (Brill, 2013), 314. Again, in 1 Thessalonians 1:6, Paul’s reference to his example and Christ’s functions not only to align Paul with Christ but also to limit the usefulness of his example to the ways in which it might reflect Christ’s.⁴³Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 24–25. Jensen’s point is well-taken that in 1 Thessalonians 1:6, Paul is helping the Thessalonians interpret their action as an imitation of Paul and Christ rather than to exhort them. Michael Martin, “‘Example’ and ‘Imitation’ in the Thessalonian Correspondence,” SwJT 42 (1999): 49. “The church’s obligation to follow a particular leader grows out of the integrity of that leader’s followship of Christ.” In none of these instances is it likely Paul confused his identity with Christ’s. Rather, in each setting, Paul is at great pains to exalt Christ’s example and limit his own to the ways they might overlap.⁴⁴Cf. Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Eerdmans, 2007), 145. Michael B. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (1991; repr., Wipf & Stock, 2011), 227. Thompson goes so far as to call Paul’s suffering an extension of Jesus’s experience; Paul’s position here cannot help but be seen to decrease in light of Christ’s increasing.

This is, moreover, the pattern in other passages which Castelli does not mention. In 2 Thessalonians 3:6–12, Paul commends his own example in not being a burden while waiting for Christ’s return. Paul caps this admonition by saying, “such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living” (2 Thess 3:12). Paul clearly believes that the Thessalonians’ own relationship with Christ supersedes theirs with his, and, therefore, the only way in which his example might serve their walk is limited by the ways in which his example reflects Christ’s. Certainly, this reinforces his authority, but it does so by simultaneously limiting it with a measure of accountability.

Likewise, in 1 Timothy 1:12–20, Paul points to his own example in conversion and faithful ministry. This is heightened by the contrast it provides with Hymenaeus and Alexander (1:18–20), who are examples of making a shipwreck of their faith. But Paul’s example highlights the “perfect patience” (1:16) and “grace of our Lord” (1:14) when “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost” (1:15). Paul certainly does give himself to Timothy as an authoritative model of Christian ministry, but this is only done by seeing that he is a sinner and that Christ alone is worthy of ultimate devotion.⁴⁵Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 344–45.

Paul instructs Timothy to think similarly about his own ministry. On the one hand, Paul tells Timothy, “Command and teach” (1 Tim 4:11). This is likely an application of the authority Paul has already invested in the office of elder (2:15–20; 3:1–7). In the next breath, however, Paul expects Timothy to “set the believers an example [τύπος γίνου] … keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching” (4:12, 16). Paul certainly believes that the example that Timothy sets will reinforce the doctrine that he teaches on the one hand. On the other, this is, again, a double-edged sword. If Timothy is to set an example, he will likewise be held accountable. Mimesis reinforces authority, but it also limits that authority through accountability.

We see this pattern with other passages in the NT which commend the imitation of leaders. So, for example, in Hebrews 13:7, before the author tells his audience to “obey” and “submit” to the leaders of the church (13:17), he tells them to “imitate [μιμεῖσθε] their faith” (13:7). Yet, in the context, this depends ultimately on Christ, who is the “founder and perfecter of our faith” (12:2), and his faithful example unto death (5:8–9; 12:1–4).⁴⁶Victor (Sung Yul) Rhee, Faith in Hebrews: Analysis within the Context of Christology, Eschatology, and Ethics (Wipf & Stock, 2019), 242. Rhee argues persuasively that, in Hebrews, Christ is not only seen as the object of faith but also as the ultimate exemplar. Cf. Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 349. This accountability is furthered by the author instructing them to “remember” and “consider” their example before they imitate them (13:7). This is capped by the author reminding these leaders that they will “give an account” for their shepherding (13:17). Certainly, the author reinforces their authority, but he also limits it by referring his readers to the ultimate example and authority, namely, Christ himself.

Likewise, Peter exhorts the readers of his letter that elders should shepherd the flock of God “exercising oversight” (ἐπισκοποῦντες), not domineering but rather “being [τύποι γινόμενοι] examples to the flock” (1 Pet 5:2–3). Γινόμενοι in 1 Peter 5:3 probably modifies ἐπισκοποῦντες in 1 Peter 5:2 as a participle of manner.⁴⁷Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Zondervan, 1996), 627–28. This is a very clear instance in which the imitative relationship that Peter is calling elders to form with the flock of God among them actually reinforces the authority of Peter and his co-elders. On the other hand, Peter explicitly contrasts this with those who are “domineering” (κατακυριεύοντες) over those in their charge (5:3), “as God would have you” (5:2). The example elders should set implies an ethic.⁴⁸Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 40. Thompson suggests that 1 Peter 5:3–4 may derive from Jesus’s teaching or a paraenetic tradition going back to him. Willis Peter De Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (1962; repr., Wipf & Stock, 2016), 85–86. Further, the eschatological judgment flavors Peter’s mimesis: Peter identifies as a “partaker of the glory that is going to be revealed” (5:1) and reminds them the “chief Shepherd” will appear (5:4). Imitation reinforces authority, but, in doing so, it also points to a standard by which to hold that authority accountable.

There are even places in mimeticrhetoric where accountability is more pronounced than the authority which can be derived from such a relationship. Consider the parallel passages in the Synoptics: Matthew 20:20–28, Mark 10:35–46, and Luke 22:24–30.⁴⁹Thompson, Clothed with Christ, 95. Thompson speculates that a similar tradition underlying these passages might be reflected in some of Paul’s mimetic exhortations, although on the basis of these verses alone he admits such a connection cannot be established without doubt. In these passages, there is a dispute over who is the greatest. In each, Jesus defines a true leader as one who serves and sacrifices himself. In each, Jesus points to himself as the ultimate example “as the one who serves” (Luke 22:24); “even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life for many” (Mark 10:45; Matt 20:28). There is an implicit mimesis which leaders can have with their charges here, for they are those who by serving others can reflect the very example of Jesus himself.⁵⁰C. D. “Jimmy” Agan, The Imitation of Christ in the Gospel of Luke: Growing in Christlike Love for God and Neighbor (P&R, 2014), 133–35. They mediate his example to the followers. This does reinforce their authority as the “great/est among you” (Matt 10:26; Mark 10:43; Luke 22:26). Nevertheless, to enter into this imitative relationship as the greatest in the church requires them to become the least as Christ had.⁵¹De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, 86. Christ’s example, while reinforcing the authority of the leader who truly reflects it,⁵²Agan, The Imitation of Christ, 134. simultaneously delimits his own example and thus provides a measure for accountability.⁵³Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 221.

Paul’s final instructions to the Ephesian elders rings similarly: “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers…” (Acts 20:28). Paul’s comments are noteworthy for the exemplaristic flavor of this instruction. Elders cannot pay attention to the flock without paying attention to themselves. The authority which has been given to them is given to them in conjunction to their exemplary function in the local church. Their authority is, to some degree, contingent on their ongoing value as models for godliness in the body. The warning Paul gives them is that he is now “innocent of the blood of all” (Acts 20:26); they will be held accountable for their obedience or failure.

2.2. Christian Mimesisand Power Sharing

Second, Castelli’s argument fails in that Paul consistently bolsters the example of others.⁵⁴Cf. Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 334–35. LaMaster, “Imitation and Exemplarity in Hebrews,” 127. Gieschen, “Christian Identity,” 11. This is true of both close companions and potential rivals. While this does not occur in every circumstance, it is prominent enough to be noteworthy.⁵⁵Martin, “‘Example’ and ‘Imitation,’” 47. Martin draws attention to this phenomenon in the Thessalonian correspondence. In 1 Corinthians 4:16, while presenting his own example for imitation, Paul also directs his readers to Timothy who will “remind you of my ways in Christ” (4:17). Some may rightly object that Paul here merely constructs a mimetic chain of sorts: imitate Timothy as he imitates me as I imitate Christ. Paul here also bolsters the example of Apollos (4:6)⁵⁶Koontz, “The Imitation of Paul,” 120. and the other apostles (4:9), none of whom does Paul put in a mimetic chain with himself.⁵⁷Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 251–53. If Castelli was correct, it is difficult to see why Paul would have held up Apollos and Cephas—who had been seen as his rivals for Corinthian affection (3:1–22)—as examples for imitation. This undercuts the need for authoritarian power which Castelli attributes to Paul.

We see similar patterns in Philippians.⁵⁸Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 348–50. Keown, “The Christ-Pattern,” 314–18. Paul does point to his own example (Phil 3:17). Much more prominent, however, are the examples of Timothy and Epaphroditus (2:19–30).⁵⁹Gerald F. Hawthorne, “The Imitation of Christ: Discipleship in Philippians,” in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. Richard N. Longenecker (Eerdmans, 1996), 174–75. Keown, “The Christ-Pattern,” 315. Keown argues that Paul frames Epaphroditus as “the supreme example within the Philippian community.” Bennema, Imitation in Early Christianity, 280–82. Paul’s praise for them follows shortly after the Christ hymn (2:5–11), where Paul highlighted Christ’s example of humility, to which he had just exhorted them (2:1–4). Paul says of Timothy, “I have no one like him, who will be genuinely concerned for your welfare. For they all seek their own interests, not those of Jesus Christ” (2:20). He praises Epaphroditus as one who “nearly died for the work of Christ, risking his life to complete what was lacking in your service to me” (2:30). Further, in 3:17, Paul may highlight his own example, but also draws attention to the example the Philippians had in both he and his associates (ἔχετε τύπον ἡμᾶς). These are more proximate both to the example of Christ in Philippians 2:5–11 and to the Philippian church by their visit. Though they are admittedly sent to communicate his example, Paul does not here construct a mimetic chain where Timothy and Epaphroditus mediate his example, as might be argued from 1 Corinthians 4:17, contra Castelli; rather, they are examples of Christ in their own right.⁶⁰Hawthorne, “The Imitation of Christ,” 175. Hawthorne points out the importance of Epaphroditus’s example, in particular, because he was from Philippi. Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 349. “This perspective,” says Clarke, “is strikingly at odds with the interpretation offered by Castelli … who see here references to power, control and authority.” If Paul was consolidating his power, it is difficult to see why his descriptions of Timothy and Epaphroditus were not more restrained and more explicitly tied to himself.

The pastoral epistles similarly describe the exemplary moral qualifications for elders (1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9) and deacons (1 Tim 3:8–13). Paul commands Timothy to “set the believers an example in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (4:12).⁶¹De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, 86–87. In none of these passages does the apostle imply that elders would take Paul’s example as a reference point. The actual texts of the pastoral epistles imply that Paul entrusts to Timothy and Titus the responsibilities of assessing and acknowledging the godliness of the elders in their church (cf. 2 Tim 2:1–2; Titus 1:5). If anything, Paul’s imitative commands here remove himself from the equation, inviting Timothy and Titus to form their own mimetic chains between Christ and the other elders and the flock.⁶²De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, 87–88. Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 356.

2.3. Christian Mimesisand Costly Virtues

Third, Castelli’s argument fails in that Paul’s example, which he commends for imitation, is typically of virtues⁶³Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 32. Jensen argues that “Paul’s focus is on the ‘passive’ virtues: humility, generosity, patient endurance, forgiveness, forbearance, suffering with joy” (italics original). that would be difficult to turn to personal gain.⁶⁴Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 210. LaMaster, “Imitation and Exemplarity in Hebrews,” 127. De Boer, The Imitation of Paul, 207. Indeed, the whole purpose of imitating Christ is for the benefit of others.⁶⁵Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 32. So, for example, it is true that in Philippians 3:17, Paul commends his own example to the Philippians. But of what is he an example? Is it that Paul counts his whole life before Christ as loss (3:7–8)? Is it that Paul’s righteousness is only in Christ (3:9)? Is it that Paul strains towards the goal that comes from the prize of the “upward call of God in Christ Jesus” (3:14)? Is it that Paul portrays Christ as the arch-model for humility (2:1–11)?⁶⁶Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 350. Weaver, “Paul’s Call to Imitation,” 196–97. How Paul leverages this self-deprecation for personal gain is unclear.⁶⁷Jenks, Paul and His Mortality, 216–17. Jenks shows how Paul is deliberately framing his future in martyrological terms.

Similarly, consider 1 Corinthians 4:16 and 11:1. “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,” says Paul, “just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved” (10:32–33). These words directly precede Paul’s statement, “Be imitators of me as I am of Christ” (11:1). Paul calls them to an example of one who sacrifices self-interest in order to draw others closer to Christ.⁶⁸Belleville, “Imitate Me,” 126. Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 346. His example is not seeking his own advantage but others’.⁶⁹Agan, The Imitation of Christ, 10–11. As Ellington points out, the command actually invites the Corinthians to become co-participants in the gospel (cf. 9:23).⁷⁰Ellington, “Imitating Paul’s Relationship to the Gospel,” 304. Similarly, Paul’s statement earlier in the letter, “I urge you, then, be imitators of me” (4:16), is in reference to Paul’s willing sacrifice on behalf of the Corinthians.⁷¹Jenks, Paul and His Mortality, 223–24. Paul refers to his weakness, disrepute, hunger, thirst, threadbare garments, physical beatings, homelessness, labor, enduring revilings, persecutions, slanders (4:8–13).⁷²Cf. Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 251. Paul finally concludes, “We have become, and are still, like the scum of the world, the refuse of all things” (4:13). Paul bears all this for his beloved children, the Corinthians (4:14–15). Paul’s exhortation to imitate him in the Corinthian correspondence would be fulfilled by imitating his own correspondence to the “pattern and power” of the gospel, namely giving up one’s own rights and embracing weakness.⁷³Ellington, “Imitating Paul’s Relationship to the Gospel,” 313. Cf. Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” 185. Gieschen, “Christian Identity,” 12. Gieschen argues for baptismal language in 1 Corinthians 4:17. Bennema, Imitation in Early Christianity, 258. Again, it is difficult to see how the specific example (namely, Paul’s suffering on behalf of his readers), which he provides for the Corinthians, could be turned towards his own personal gain.⁷⁴Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 345. Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 254–55. Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 23.

Paul specifically aligns his example and Christ’s (1 Thess 1:6) with the example of the Thessalonians (1:7; 2:14) in enduring affliction.⁷⁵Jenks, Paul and His Mortality, 215. Both Paul and the Thessalonians exhibit endurance through tribulation. Paul notes how he had set an example in great deprivation, which the Thessalonians themselves had strictly followed. The pattern being stressed here is one of sacrifice, selflessness, and suffering, not of using official power and authority to cultivate personal prestige.⁷⁶Cf. Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 333–40. Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 25–26.

Likewise, in Galatians 4:12, Paul entreats the Galatians to become as he is. What does this mean? Paul states very clearly, “for I also have become as you are.” Paul’s example is of one willing to set aside the law and embrace the gospel’s freedom. Paul asks that they, too, would be willing to lay down their efforts at self-justification as he has. His example does not, here, engender loyalty to his person.⁷⁷Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 352–53. Rather, Paul’s example encourages loyalty to Christ’s person.

Again, in Acts 20:28, Paul enjoins the Ephesian elders, “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,” and proceeds to hold up his own example of someone who worked with his own hands rather than coveting silver or gold or apparel (20:33–35). Paul had lived a life of generosity in line with the instructions of Christ (20:35); he expects the Ephesian elders will do likewise. How the example to which Paul draws attention as he leaves them for the last time could be used for self interest when he had already willingly laid down such gain cannot be easily substantiated.⁷⁸Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 357–59.

Paul is no outlier when compared with the rest of the New Testament. In the Synoptic passages we surveyed above (Matt 20:20–28; Mark 10:35–46; Luke 22:24–30), the specific virtue of leaders described in exemplary terms is a willingness to serve and to give oneself up for others. In order to rank as a leader in the church, one must become a slave (Matt 20:27; Mark 10:44) and a servant (Matt 20:27; Mark 10:43). “Let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves” (Luke 22:26). This, of course, reflects Christ’s sacrifice on the cross (Matt 10:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27). Jesus instructs his followers that authority should only be given to those who sacrifice personal prestige for others’ sake, obviously analogous to the cross. There is no insinuation of using authority for one’s own personal gain.

We might also point to Peter’s instructions to his co-elders, “shepherd the flock of God that is among you … not for shameful gain, but eagerly…” (1 Pet 5:2). The joy that comes from shepherding ought to motivate the elders, not personal gain. It is only after making this clear that Peter says, “being examples to the flock” (5:3). The virtue which Peter holds up as exemplary in this case is the joy in the “glory that is to be revealed” (5:1), not the desire to consolidate one’s power.

Castelli’s observation that the mimetic rhetoric of Paul often reinforces the authority structures within churches in his orbit seems straightforwardly correct. Less correct, however, is the accuracy of her characterization of that same authority. Rather than encouraging an authority which cultivates personal reputation, prestige, and power, we have seen that the exhortation to imitate Paul and other leaders throughout the New Testament increases accountability, shares authority, and encourages virtues which hinder using authority for personal gain.

2.4. Christian MimesisInverts Cultural Norms

It seems necessary, therefore, to add a fourth critique of Castelli’s assessment of the imitative language of Paul. Castelli fails to understand the authority structures of the first Christians on terms which they themselves would have understood them.⁷⁹Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 183–84. Copan is right to draw attention to Castelli’s criticism of Paul’s authority as illegitimate. LaMaster, “Imitation and Exemplarity in Hebrews,” 126. Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 243–44. Ehrensperger highlights the unnecessarily restrictive account of the background of mimesis in the Pauline corpus as purely Greco-Roman. She instead points to the symbolic world of second-temple Judaism. Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity: Paul’s inversion of a Social Icon,” 218. Harrison critiques Castelli’s a priori suppositions concerning power and failure to integrate the culturally ubiquitous notions of shame and the poleis. Notably, Harrison also critiques Copan for much the same illegitimate equivocation. Koontz, “The Imitation of Paul,” 115. Koontz draws attention to Castelli’s “anachronistic” reading of the NT texts. This may be her deepest flaw. Certainly, the mimetic rhetoric of the NT reinforces authority structures. These relationships, however, do not cohere with her characterizations. True, Castelli cites Foucalt’s observations concerning the distinction between “Pastoral Power” and “Royal Power” to this effect (in particular, that “Pastoral Power” leads to individualization rather than “sameness”), but this distinction does not characterize her view of Paul’s mimeticrhetoric.⁸⁰Castelli, Imitating Paul, 47. Cf. Clarke, “Be Imitators of Me,” 332. Clarke specifically notes Castelli’s equivocation of Pauline mimesis with Greco-Roman mimesis. Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 216–17. Castelli’s view is particularly problematic in light of Harrison’s assessment that, while there were some parallels between Paul and the philosophers, they do not correlate in every way, and, therefore, the imitation rendered to each will differ in respective ways.

The earliest Christians perceived the authority structures in their contemporary context as highly problematic.⁸¹Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 240. For example, Harrison characterizes the difference between Plutarch’s and Paul’s respective discussions of great men as coming to “vastly different conclusions regarding the ethos of leadership.” Cf. 245–49. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles,” says Jesus, “lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you” (Matt 20:25–26; cf. Mark 10:42–43; Luke 22:25–26). In the early church, authority was meant to be exercised and wielded in ways corresponding to the sacrifice of the Son of Man, not the Roman Imperium.⁸²Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director, 203. The earliest Christians were not averse to authority structures in the early church;⁸³Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 246–47. they were, however, wary of abuse and misuse of such authority. This stance was shaped by their settled conviction concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. If the same Christ who was worthy of ultimate authority laid himself down for others’ sakes (cf. 2 Cor 8:9; Phil 2:5–11),⁸⁴Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 240. it follows that other leaders were only worthy of authority if they gained and used it in analogous ways.

It also follows that the rhetoric which reinforces these power structures will conform to similar patterns. Thus, if mimesis is used to bolster authority relationships in ancient rhetoric, it ought to do so in ways that reflect belief structures surrounding those relationships.⁸⁵Gieschen, “Christian Identity,” 7–8. “This is not to say that Paul learned this imitation tradition from the philosopher and employed it without modification…. (Paul) carefully distances himself from the problematic practices of charlatan philosophers who took advantage of their hosts through deceitful and flattering speech.” For Christians, this means cross-shaped leadership.⁸⁶David B. Capes, “Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre,” BBR 13.1 (2003): 11. Cf. Jenks, Paul and His Mortality, 208. Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 344. Note Clarke’s application of this to, in particular, the Corinthian context. Ellington, “Imitating Paul’s Relationship to the Gospel,” 313. Cruciformity was certainly Paul’s goal both for himself and his readers (cf. 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6).⁸⁷Gieschen, “Christian Identity,” 12–16. Clarke, “Be Imitators,” 350. “Unlike the frequent exhortations to imitation which are found in Graeco-Roman society and literature, the example of Paul (whether as father or teacher) is given only in the context of his following and directing the church also to follow the far greater example of Christ.” Ehrensperger, “Be Imitators of Me as I am of Christ,” 250. Ellington, “Imitating Paul’s Relationship to the Gospel,” 303–13. Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 249. Richard B. Hays, “Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ,” CBQ 49 (1987): 281. Jensen, “Imitating Paul,” 23. Castelli points to the ways that mimesis was used to bolster authority in antiquity.⁸⁸Castelli, Imitating Paul, 78–81. She fails, however, to note that Christian mimesis seems to upend the patterns of antiquity through what Harrison calls “Paul’s Inversion of a Cultural Icon” in Paul’s mimetic discourse:⁸⁹Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 213–54. Cf. Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 147–48.

It was ultimately the cruciform nature of Jesus’ call to mimetic discipleship (Mark 8:34–38; cf. 1 Cor 1:18–25; 2 Cor 4:7–12; 13:4) and his example of humility and service (Mark 10:35–45; Luke 22:24–37; John 13:1–17; cf. Phil 2:5–8; Rom 15:7; 2 Cor 10:1; Col 3:13) that triumphed over the Greco-Roman preoccupation with inherited status, individual achievement, and self-advertisement.⁹⁰Harrison, “The Imitation of the ‘Great Man’ in Antiquity,” 254.

By crucifying Christ, the Romans had attempted to make use of him as an antitype, a negative example.⁹¹Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation” 183. The Christians transformed this negative exemplum into their ultimate exemplar. This corresponded to their countercultural view of authority.⁹²Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” 189–90. To understate the matter, the Roman attempt to make an example out of Christ backfired spectacularly.⁹³Cf. Fiore, “Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation,” 189. “Mimicking aspects of Roman exemplarity but recontextualizing them within Judean ethnic traditions by associating them with a number of scriptural exempla, Paul revalued Jesus’ crucifixion and death. Originally an exemplum of Rome’s power to silence and suppress its provincial subjects, Paul recoded Jesus’ crucifixion as a model demonstrating submission to ecclesial authority, inner-assembly unity, ethical social praxis, divine power in the midst of socio-political weakness, and inter-assembly donations for Jerusalem’s poor.”

It is a methodological error to critique authority structures of the earliest Christians while failing to note the ways in which they themselves understood that authority. It is anachronistic and patronizing to negatively assess the authority relationships which the early Christians under such authority would not. If mimesisin the NT reinforces authority, which we should grant that it does, it is apparent that it reinforces a peculiarly Christian kind of authority. It leads to an authority not only committed to theological convictions around Christ’s death and resurrection but also to an authority profoundly formed by these same cross-centered convictions.

3. Conclusion

This paper has assessed Elizabeth Castelli’s contention that Paul’s mimetic rhetoric is best understood as consolidating his personal authority. Castelli’s negative reception nevertheless leaves open questions concerning the degree to which the NT does use mimesis to reinforce authority structures. We found that the mimetictexts of Paul do, in fact, strengthen authority relationships. It does so, however, in a way that increases accountability, shares power, encourages sacrifice, and conforms to a cruciform philosophy of leadership among the earliest Christians. Castelli errs not in observing relationships between mimesis and authority but in her anachronistic and patronizing characterization of such a relationship.

This is of great relevance today. In a day and age where authority structures in religious communities lack credibility, are rigorously scrutinized, and are often found wanting, the Christian understanding and culture of leadership is in need of repair. Fortunately, the restoration of authority is intrinsic to the gospel of redemption.⁹⁴As Jonathan Leeman has recently argued, “Jesus submitted and sacrificed himself as an act of authority–an act of taking charge and giving orders and declaring what’s what… His cross work was priestly, say the biblical theologians. Yet it was also kingly.” Cf. Jonathan Leeman, Authority, How Godly Rule Protects the Vulnerable, Strengthens Communities, and Promotes Human Flourishing (Crossway, 2025), 49. Italics in original. When reconstructing authority, therefore, Christians should not fear authority, but neither should we wield it flippantly. The imitative rhetoric of the earliest Christians is suggestive of how Christians ought to both strengthen and use their authority. In the New Testament, Christian mimesis bolsters authority, but as it does so it increases accountability, shares power, encourages sacrificial virtue, and conforms to the cross of Christ. If this paper has shown anything, it is that pastors would do well to regain the integrity necessary to say with the apostle Paul, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ” (cf. 1 Cor 11:1).

---