Mimesis in the Johannine Literature: A Study in Johannine Ethics 9780567437204, 9780567678409, 9780567225702

Citation preview

LIBRARY OF NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

498 Formerly the Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement series

Editor Chris Keith

Editorial Board Dale C. Allison, John M.G. Barclay, Lynn H. Cohick, R. Alan Culpepper, Craig A. Evans, Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathercole, John S. Kloppenborg, Michael Labahn, Love L. Sechrest, Robert Wall, Steve Walton, Catrin H. Williams

MIMESIS IN THE JOHANNINE LITERATURE

A Study in Johannine Ethics

Cornelis Bennema

T&T CLARK Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK 1385 Broadway, New York, NY 10018, USA BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the T&T Clark logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2017 Paperback edition first published in 2019 © Cornelis Bennema, 2017 Cornelis Bennema has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Author of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Bennema, Cornelis, 1964- author. Title: Mimesis in the Johannine literature : a study inJohannine ethics / CornelisBennema. Description: New York : Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2017. |Series: Library of New Testamentstudies ; volume 458 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017025112 (print) | LCCN 2017033332(ebook) | ISBN 9780567225702(ePDF) | ISBN 9780567678416 (ePUB) | ISBN 9780567437204 (hb: alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. John–Criticism, interpretation,etc. | Bible. Epistles ofJohn–Criticism, interpretation, etc. | Mimesis in the Bible. | Ethics–Biblical teaching. | Ethics in the Bible. Classification: LCC BS2601 (ebook) | LCC BS2601 .B46 2017 (print) | DDC 226.5/06–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017025112 ISBN: HB: 978-0-5674-3720-4 PB: 978-0-5676-8742-5 ePDF: 978-0-5672-2570-2 ePub: 978-0-5676-7841-6 Series: Library of New Testament Studies, volume 498 Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

To Jan and Ruben – true pioneers in Johannine ethics

Contents Preface Abbreviations

x xii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Outlining the Current State of Affairs 1.1.1 Ἐν Ἀρχῇ There Were Only Non-Johannine Studies on Mimesis (1960s) 1.1.2 The Dark Era: There Is No Johannine Ethics (1970–2000) 1.1.3 The Quest for Johannine Ethics (2000–2012) 1.1.4 A New Era of Johannine Ethics (2012–present) 1.1.5 Contemporary Non-Johannine Studies on Mimesis (1970–present) 1.2 Articulating the Problem 1.3 Defining Mimesis 1.4 Formulating Our Aim, Plan and Approach

17 22 24 26

Chapter 2 The Johannine Mimetic Language 2.1 Mimesis, Analogy and Reciprocity 2.2 Mimetic Expressions in the Johannine Literature 2.3 Statistical Analysis of the Data 2.4 Conclusion

33 33 39 58 63

Chapter 3 Divine Mimesis 3.1 The Son–Father Mimesis 3.1.1 The Son–Father Relationship 3.1.2 The Paradigm of the Son–Father Mimesis 3.1.3 Specific Occurrences of the Son–Father Mimesis 3.1.4 The Mechanics and Nature of the Son–Father Mimesis 3.2 The Spirit–Jesus Mimesis 3.3 Conclusion

65 65 65 67 71 75 78 80

Chapter 4 The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis 4.1 Conceptual Traces of Mimesis 4.1.1 Following Jesus

83 83 83

1 4 4 8 9 15

viii

Contents

4.2

4.3

4.4.

4.5 4.6

4.1.2 Remaining with Jesus 4.1.3 Filial Mimesis 4.1.4 Conclusion The Footwashing – Cloning or Creative Articulation? 4.2.1 The Mimetic Model in John 13 4.2.2 Johannine Mimesis as Cloning and Creative Articulation 4.2.3 Conclusion Actualizing the Love Command through Mimesis 4.3.1 The Giving of the Love Command (John 13:34-35) 4.3.2 Abiding and Supreme Love (John 15:9-17) 4.3.3 Love in Action (1 John 3:11-18) 4.3.4 God’s Love Compels (1 John 4:7-21) 4.3.5 The Scope of the Recipients of the Love Command (and Other Forms of Mimesis) 4.3.6 Conclusion Existential Mimesis 4.4.1 Existential Mimesis in John 17 Excursus: The Johannine Language of ‘Oneness’ and ‘Indwelling’ 4.4.2 Existential Mimesis in 1 John 3–4 4.4.3 Conclusion Other Instances of the Believer–Jesus Mimesis Conclusion

Chapter 5 The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics 5.1 The Ethical Nature of the Johannine Literature 5.1.1 A Moral Narrative World 5.1.2 A Moral God 5.1.3 Moral Transformation 5.1.4 Conclusion 5.2 Family as the Context of Johannine Ethics 5.2.1 Family Membership and Identity Formation 5.2.2 Family Behaviour and Identity Shaping 5.2.3 Conclusion 5.3 Mimesis as Family Ethics 5.3.1 Mimesis as Family Behaviour 5.3.2 Mimesis and Family Identity 5.3.3 Conclusion 5.4 The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics 5.4.1 The Statistical Argument 5.4.2 The Argument from the Nature of the Divine–Human Relationship 5.5 Conclusion

87 88 91 91 93 98 104 106 108 112 115 118 120 123 125 125 126 132 134 135 139

143 143 144 148 152 154 155 155 159 161 161 162 163 165 165 165 167 168

Contents

Chapter 6 Mimetic Empowerment 6.1 Relational Empowerment 6.2 Mnemonic Empowerment 6.3 The Spirit as Empowerment 6.3.1 The Spirit as a Moral Agent 6.3.2 The Spirit as a Relational Agent 6.3.3 The Spirit as a Mnemonic Agent 6.4 Conclusion

ix

171 171 177 186 186 188 189 191

Chapter 7 Conclusion 7.1 Summary 7.2 The Place of Johannine Mimesis in Antiquity 7.3 Implications 7.3.1 Johannine Ethics as Dynamic, Creative, Spirit-Led Community Ethics 7.3.2 Moral Education and (Trans)formation 7.4 Recommendations for Further Research

201 202 204

Appendix 1: Occurrences of Mimesis in the Johannine Literature Bibliography Index of Authors

207 210 227

193 193 195 200

Preface This book began as an idea that has been tested for its viability over the last four years. In 2011, in preparation for a sabbatical project, I started examining the subject of identity and behaviour in the Johannine literature. I was struck during the initial research by the regular occurrence of a concept, which I phrased at that time as ‘just as Jesus did, so we should do’. Assuming I would clarify this issue in a short time, I made this the starting point for my sabbatical project in 2012 at the Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz, where Professor Dr Ruben Zimmermann kindly hosted me. Working under the dictum ‘you go where your research leads you’, this ‘digression’ took on a life of its own and the concept of mimesis in the Johannine literature became the ‘main thing’. During my time at Mainz, I wrote four papers, each of which discussed a single issue: (i) mimesis in the footwashing pericope; (ii) actualizing the love command through mimesis; (iii) the place of mimesis in Johannine ethics; and (iv) mimetic empowerment. With these papers, I started to test the viability of the concept of Johannine mimesis in various academic circles. In July 2016, the project came full circle when I returned to Mainz to complete the manuscript for this book. Consequently, several parts of this book have been tried out in earlier forms at various conferences. Section 4.2 was the pilot study used to test the validity of the entire project on Johannine mimesis: first as the paper ‘Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or Creative Articulation?’ at the joint New Testament seminar of the universities of Mainz and Frankfurt, then as a paper at the British New Testament Conference (all in 2012), and finally published in adapted form in 2014 in Novum Testamentum. Section 4.3 was presented as the paper ‘Actualizing the Love Command through Mimesis in the Johannine Literature’ at the 2012 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Chicago. The gist of Chapter 4 was presented as the paper ‘Mimetic Ethics in the Johannine Literature’ at the 70th General Meeting of the SNTS in Amsterdam 2015, and the essay ‘Mimetic Ethics in the Gospel of John’ in a 2016 WUNT volume (see Chapter 1 n. 12 for details). Parts of Chapters 2 and 5 were presented in papers titled ‘The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics’ at the 2013 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Baltimore, and ‘Moral Transformation in the Johannine Writings’ at the 2016 British New Testament Conference. I express gratitude to various people who have been instrumental in the completion of this book. First, I thank Ruben Zimmermann, for hosting me during my time in Mainz in 2012 and 2016, and our ongoing friendship, and Jan van der Watt, for his mentoring and friendship. For their friendship and pioneering work in Johannine ethics, I have dedicated this book to them. Second, I am grateful to Dominic Mattos (publisher for T&T Clark) and Chris Keith (series editor of

Preface

xi

the LNTS series) for accepting this work in their series, and to the entire team at Bloomsbury T&T Clark for their help in producing this volume. Third, I am especially grateful to my wife Susan for her kind and able editing, and to God, the source of life, love and knowledge. Ad Dei gloriam. Mainz, July 2016 Cornelis Bennema Senior Lecturer of New Testament at Union School of Theology, UK and Research Fellow, Department of Old and New Testament Studies, Faculty of Theology and Religion, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa

Abbreviations AB ABD AELKZ ANTC ASNU ATANT BBET BBR BDAG

BECNT BETL BHT Bib BibInt BNTC BRLA BThSt BWANT BZNW CBET CBQ CBQMS CNNTE CNT CTJ CurBR EC ECL EKKNT GthF HKNT HTR Int IVP

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Allgemeine evangelisch-lutherische Kirchenzeitung Abingdon New Testament Commentaries Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments Beiträge zur biblischen Exegese und Theologie Bulletin for Biblical Research Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Beiträge zur historischen Theologie Biblica Biblical Interpretation Series Black’s New Testament Commentaries Brill Reference Library of Judaism Biblisch-Theologische Studien Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics Commentaire du Nouveau Testament Calvin Theological Journal Currents in Biblical Research Early Church Early Christianity and its Literature Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Greifswalder theologische Forschungen Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review Interpretation InterVarsity Press

Abbreviations

JBL JECH JETS JPTSup JSHJ JSNT JSNTSup KEK L&N

LCL LNTS MJT MTZ NCBC NICNT NICOT NovT NovTSup NSBT NTD NTS ÖTK PBMS PTM RBS RKK RNT RSR RTP SA SANT SBFA SBL SBLDS SIJD SP SPCK STAR TDNT

TENTS ThHK

xiii

Journal of Biblical Literature Journal of Early Christian History Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Pentecostal Theology Supplement Series Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of the New Testament Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Louw, Johannes P., and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989 Loeb Classical Library Library of New Testament Studies Marburger Jahrbuch Theologie Münchener theologische Zeitschrift New Cambridge Bible Commentary New International Commentary on the New Testament New International Commentary on the Old Testament Novum Testamentum Supplements to Novum Testamentum New Studies in Biblical Theology Das Neue Testament Deutsch New Testament Studies Ökumenischer Taschenbuch-Kommentar Paternoster Biblical Monograph Series Paternoster Theological Monographs Resources for Biblical Study Religionspädagogische Kontexte und Konzepte Regensburger Neues Testament Recherches de science religieuse Revue de théologie et de philosophie Studia Anselmiana Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testaments Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Analecta Society of Biblical Literature Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum Sacra Pagina Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge Studies in Theology and Religion Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976 Text and Editions for New Testament Study Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Leipzig)

xiv

THKNT TS TTZ TWNT TynBul WBC WUNT ZNW

Abbreviations

Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart) Theological Studies Trierer theologische Zeitschrift Theologische Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1932–1979 Tyndale Bulletin Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche

Chapter 1 Introduction

Mimesis is more pervasive than people realize. Humans grow and develop by imitating others: babies learn to talk by imitating their parents; children grow up imitating their parents, teachers and other role models; adults develop in their thinking and behaviour by imitating others.1 As Matthew Potolsky states, Mimesis is among the oldest terms in literary and artistic theory, and it is certainly among the most fundamental. It so defines our way of thinking about art, literature and representation more generally that we rely on the concept even if we have never heard of it or do not know its history.2

In Christianity, the idea of mimesis or imitation (especially the imitatio Christi) has been studied by theologians more than biblical scholars, and is more fashionable in pietist than in academic circles. The fifteenth-century book The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis is probably the most popular devotional work apart from the Bible.3 During the 1990s and early 2000s, the term WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) became a popular slogan among Evangelical Christians to show their desire to

1. See Christoph Wulf, ‘Mimetic Learning’, Designs for Learning 1 (2008): 56–67. In some contexts, imitation has negative connotations. In art, an imitation or copy of an original painting is considered a forgery (even though, in case of a landscape or portrait, the original itself is an imitation of reality); in education and academia, copying someone else’s ideas without acknowledgement amounts to plagiarism; in forensic science, a copycat refers to one who imitates the behaviour or practices of another criminal; in the visual media, the exaggerated imitation of certain characteristics of a person to create a comic or grotesque effect is called a caricature. 2. Matthew Potolsky, Mimesis (New York: Routledge, 2006), 1. 3. See also Martin Buber, ‘Nachahmung Gottes’, Der Morgen 1 (1925–1926): 638–47; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge (München: Kaiser, 1958) (the allusion to imitation in the word Nachfolge is lost in the English title The Cost of Discipleship); Peter James Hedderwick Adam, ‘The practice of the imitation of Christ with special reference to the theology of Dietrich Bonnhoeffer’ (PhD diss., Durham University, 1981). For a study of the impact of The Imitation of Christ, see Maximilian von Habsburg, Catholic and Protestant Translations

2

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

behave like Jesus, thus to imitate him. Other sections of the church, however, such as the Reformed tradition, are sceptical about or critical of the concept of imitating Jesus because they perceive moral endeavour to be at odds with their doctrine of salvation by grace; they consider such striving an infringement on the uniqueness of Christ.4 The present book is an exegetical-theological study on the concept of mimesis in the Johannine literature – both the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles.5 I will seek to argue that mimesis is integral to Johannine ethics. This topic is challenging for at least three reasons. First, Johannine ethics itself is a problematic area. Wolfgang Schrage wonders ‘whether a chapter on the Johannine writings even belongs in a book on the ethics of the New Testament’,6 and Wayne Meeks calls the topic of Johannine ethics (in the sense of John’s Gospel being a vehicle of moral formation) an oxymoron.7 Likewise, many scholars have contended that the Johannine Corpus has little or no ethical content (except for the love command, of course) and that it has an inward-looking or sectarian perspective. Jan van der Watt is an exception. He, often in collaboration with Ruben Zimmermann, has relentlessly explored the topic of Johannine ethics since 2006 (see further Sections 1.1.3–1.1.4). In 2012, their collaboration resulted in the first volume on Johannine ethics, Rethinking the Ethics of John.8 Although this of the Imitatio Christi, 1425–1650: From Late Medieval Classic to Early Modern Bestseller, St Andrews Studies in Reformation History (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011). 4. See, for example, the various articles in the journal Modern Reformation 18.2 (2009) – an issue dedicated to the imitation of Christ – and Alister McGrath, ‘In What Way Can Jesus Be a Moral Example for Christians’, JETS 34 (1991): 289–98. For a more nuanced discussion, see John B. Webster, ‘The Imitation of Christ’, TynBul 37 (1986): 95–120. 5. The similarities in language, syntax, style and thought of the Gospel and Epistles warrants an examination of both writings, even as common authorship is debated. I will examine both the Gospel of John and the Johannine Epistles without making any assertions about their authorship or the chronological order of the writings. For the purpose of convenience, I will refer to the author(s) of the Gospel and Epistles as ‘John’. While it is unclear whether the Gospel was composed before or after the Epistles, I envision a narrative setting of the Gospel in the early 30s of the first century and a setting of the Epistles in the late first century. For a recent discussion of the relationship between the Gospel and the Epistles, see Raimo Hakola, ‘The Reception and Development of the Johannine Tradition in 1, 2 and 3 John’, in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel, ed. T. Rasimus, NovTSup 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 17–47. 6. Wolfgang Schrage, The Ethics of the New Testament, trans. David E. Green (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988), 297; orig. Ethik des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982). 7. Wayne A. Meeks, ‘The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist’, in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 317. 8. Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann, eds., Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings, CNNTE III, WUNT 291 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012).

Introduction

3

landmark study constitutes a successful case for Johannine ethics and provides people with a legitimate basis to explore the scope and nature of Johannine ethics, I believe it has not identified the centre of Johannine ethics. I will argue in this book that mimesis is at the heart of Johannine ethics. This leads us to the second challenge, namely the absence to date of any detailed study on mimesis in the Johannine writings. In the collection of essays edited by Jan van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann, the topic of mimesis was not discussed. The first single-authored monograph on Johannine ethics by Karl Weyer-Menkhoff (a former student of Ruben Zimmermann) also does not address the issue.9 In 2017, there came a second collection of essays on Johannine ethics, edited by Sherri Brown and Christopher Skinner, but once again without the topic of mimesis.10 Richard Burridge does use the term ‘imitation’ as a lens to explore New Testament ethics in his 2007 book Imitating Jesus, but he does not adequately unpack the (Johannine) concept (see Section 1.1.3).11 Apart from my efforts, only two other scholars have written on the topic – Dirk van der Merwe on mimesis in the Gospel of John and Jan van der Watt on mimesis in 1 John – but neither of them has looked across the Johannine writings in sufficient detail.12 It thus appears that mimesis in the Johannine literature is mostly uncharted territory. This is unsurprising, and constitutes the third challenge, because even though the New Testament contains the terms μιμεῖσθαι, μιμητής and συμμιμητής (mainly in the Pauline Epistles), in the Johannine literature only the term μιμεῖσθαι occurs and then just once – in 3 John 11 as a general ethical imperative to imitate good and not evil. This means that if the concept of mimesis is present in the Johannine 9. Karl Weyer-Menkhoff, Die Ethik des Johannesevangeliums im sprachlichen Feld des Handelns, CNNTE V, WUNT II/359 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). 10. Sherri Brown and Christopher W. Skinner, eds., Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017). 11. Richard A. Burridge, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 334–45. 12. Dirk G. van der Merwe, ‘Imitatio Christi in the Fourth Gospel’, Verbum et Ecclesia 22 (2001): 131–48; Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Navolging van Jezus, Mimesis and 1 Johannes’, In die Skriflig 48.1 (2014): 1–8, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v48:1.1819; idem, ‘The Ethos of Being Like Jesus: Imitation in 1 John’, in Ethos und Theologie im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Michael Wolter, ed. Jochen Flebbe and Matthias Konradt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016), 415–40; idem, ‘Reciprocity, Mimesis and Ethics in 1 John’, in Erzählung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis, ed. Uta Poplutz and Jörg Frey, WUNT II/420 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 257–76. While van der Watt’s 2014 article, in Afrikaans in a lesser-known journal, is inaccessible for many, he has updated it and made it available in English among his 2016 essays. I have written two articles on the subject as a precursor of the present book: Cornelis Bennema, ‘Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or Creative Articulation?’, NovT 56 (2014): 261–74; idem, ‘Mimetic Ethics in the Gospel of John’, in Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik, ed. Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann, CNNTE VII, WUNT 356 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 205–17.

4

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

literature, other literal terms would indicate it. Accordingly, my understanding of the Johannine concept of mimesis is informed by the Johannine text rather than Greek antiquity where discourse on mimesis originated (see further Section 1.3). Nevertheless, I will seek to situate John in the broader intellectual environment of his time in Chapter 7. This book, then, is the first organized study that elucidates the Johannine concept of mimesis.

1.1 Outlining the Current State of Affairs A monograph usually sketches the status questionis of the topic under investigation in order to explain the rationale and legitimacy for the study. In our case, this would not yield much because of the dearth of studies on Johannine mimesis, thus forcing me to cast my net wide. Since mimesis belongs to the broader field of ethics, I will examine previous research on Johannine ethics to discover how this might prepare us for our first study on Johannine mimesis. I will also look at previous research on mimesis in the New Testament (read Paul). I divide this survey of literature into five parts: (i) the 1960s, which saw the rise of some nonJohannine studies on mimesis; (ii) the period from 1970 till 2000, dominated by the consensus that there is no Johannine ethics; (iii) from 2000 till 2012, when a few scholars laboured to turn the tide; (iv) the period since 2012, which has heralded a new era of Johannine ethics; (v) the period since 1970, offering numerous nonJohannine studies on mimesis. Since the vast majority of literature is on Johannine ethics rather than mimesis, I will limit my description of the content of these works, since we can find an account elsewhere.13 Instead, our survey seeks to show (i) how early non-Johannine studies on mimesis provide a significant impetus for our study, and (ii) how the recent trend in Johannine ethics presents fertile soil for our study on mimesis. 1.1.1 Ἐν Ἀρχῇ There Were Only Non-Johannine Studies on Mimesis (1960s) I have chosen the 1960s as the terminus a quo for our understanding of the Johannine concept of mimesis because during this decade the first full-fledged studies on mimesis in the New Testament appeared.14 While these studies focused

13. The opening essays in the above-mentioned volume Rethinking the Ethics of John (see n. 8) provide a detailed overview of the current state of Johannine ethics: Michael Labahn, ‘“It’s Only Love” – Is That All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine “Ethic” – A Critical Evaluation of Research’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 3–43; Ruben Zimmermann, ‘Is there Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 44–80. 14. This does not mean there were no studies on mimesis before then (see, e.g. Albrecht Oepke, ‘Nachfolge und Nachahmung Christi im Neuen Testament’, AELKZ 71 (1938): 853–69; David M. Stanley, ‘Become Imitators of Me: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic

Introduction

5

on Paul, we must remember that New Testament studies were not as specialized as they are today. Hence, the value of these non-Johannine monographs for our study is that they also touched on the Johannine literature. However, Johannine scholarship has not capitalized on some of these findings. In short, while there is no study dedicated to the concept of Johannine mimesis, some early non-Johannine studies on the concept of imitation in Paul will prove fruitful for our study. I will not be exhaustive but only highlight those studies that have some significance for our enquiry into John.15 In 1960, E.J. Tinsley argued that the Old Testament concept of ‘the way’ is fundamental to the notion of mimesis (Israel imitates God by following or walking in God’s ways), and that the New Testament carried through this idea in the discipleship language of following Jesus.16 Regarding John’s Gospel, for example, Tinsley claims that ἀκολουθεῖν ‘indicates at one and the same time the actual physical historical accompanying and the spiritual and ethical mimesis’.17 De Boer, however, contends that Tinsley associates the expressions ‘walking in God’s ways’, ‘walking after God’ and ‘following God’ too readily with the idea of imitating God.18 We will return to this idea in Section 4.1 where we will test whether following Jesus means imitating him. The most significant of these non-Johannine studies, in my view, is a dissertation by Willis Peter de Boer at the Free University of Amsterdam in 1962.19

Tradition’, Bib 40 (1959): 859–77), but these did not have the same impact as those in the 1960s. For studies on the subject prior to 1960, see also the bibliography in de Boer’s monograph mentioned in n. 18 below. 15. I will omit from consideration, for example, C. Merrill Proudfoot, ‘Imitation or Realistic Participation? A Study of Paul’s Concept of “Suffering with Christ” ’, Int 17 (1963): 140–60 (exclusively on Paul). 16. E.J. Tinsley, The Imitation of God in Christ: An Essay on the Biblical Basis of Christian Spirituality (London: SCM, 1960). Tinsley notes that in contrast to ancient mystery religions and philosophy, the concept of the imitation of God in the Old Testament and New Testament was rooted in historical events, especially the Exodus and the Incarnation. In the Exodus, God was the ‘Way’ for the Israelites to follow (the literal journey from Egypt to Canaan designed and led by God also became the way to live for the Israelites in imitation of God), and in the New Testament believers imitate Jesus who was himself the ‘Way’ (Imitation of God, 30–35, 67). 17. Ibid., 127. 18. Willis Peter de Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: Kok, 1962), 36–38. For a broader critique of Tinsley, see Barnabas Lindars, ‘Imitation of God and Imitation of Christ’, Theology 76 (1973): 394–402. Christopher J.H. Wright is more careful, suggesting that ‘walking in God’s ways’ refers to both obeying God’s commands and imitating God (Old Testament Ethics for the People of God (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004), 40). 19. De Boer, Imitation of Paul (see n. 18 for full details). Wilhelm Michaelis’s article on μιμέομαι and its cognates does not shed any light on the concept of mimesis in the Johannine literature. Regarding the word group in the New Testament, his article focuses

6

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

While the focus of de Boer’s study is the imitation of Paul, in the first three chapters he lays a broad foundation by examining the usage of the literal terms μιμέομαι and τύπος (and their cognates), as well as the concepts of imitation and personal example in Greek, Jewish and Christian (the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers) literature. Inter alia, de Boer argues that the concept of ‘following Jesus’ in the Gospels has connotations of imitation.20 According to him, when Jesus established a close fellowship with his disciples, he had in mind the rabbinic educational system of that time where pupils were to learn a way of life and to be like their teachers.21 De Boer concludes that ‘Christ expected some kind of imitation to develop from the close fellowship which existed between him and his followers’.22 In 1962, Edvin Larsson sought to explain the Pauline concept of imitating Christ against the backdrop of the Jewish rabbi–pupil tradition, but also looked briefly at the concept of following Jesus in the Gospels.23 Although Larsson views die Nachfolge Jesu (‘the following of Jesus’) and die Nachahmung Christi (‘the imitation of Christ’) as being distinct, he argues that imitation becomes part of following and hence should be subsumed under discipleship.24 In Germany, two further studies appeared that examined the relationship between the terms nachfolgen (‘to follow’) and nachahmen (‘to imitate’). In 1962, Anselm Schulz studied the relationship between nachfolgen and nachahmen in early Christianity.25 In 1967, Hans Dieter Betz examined the same

on Paul’s usage, arguing that the main thought is that of obedience rather than imitation (‘μιμέομαι, μιμητής, συμμιμητής’, TDNT 4:666–74). While the English article appeared in 1967, the German version in TWNT originates from 1950. De Boer critiques Michaelis’s limiting Paul’s usage of μιμέομαι (and its cognates) to obedience (Imitation of Paul, 206, 209–11). 20. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 51–57. He briefly analyses three Johannine passages: (i) Peter’s following Jesus in 13:36-38; 21:19, 22; (ii) the footwashing in 13:12-15; and (iii) the love command in 13:33-35. I will examine his analysis in Sections 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4, respectively. 21. Ibid., 54. In contrast, Martin Hengel, contends that Jesus was not a rabbi and the rabbinical teacher–pupil relationship does not explain Jesus’ call to certain individuals to follow him. Hengel insists, ‘following after him [Jesus] did not mean imitating individual actions of his’ (The Charismatic Leader and His Followers, trans. James C.G. Greig (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981), 42–57 (quotation from p. 53, original emphasis); orig. Nachfolge und Charisma, BZNW 34 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968)). 22. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 57. 23. Edvin Larsson, Christus als Vorbild: Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten, ASNU 23 (Lund-Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962), 29–47. But note Hengel’s critique, in n. 21 above, of using the rabbinic model to explain the imitation of Christ. 24. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild, 17. 25. Anselm Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik, SANT 6 (Munich: Kösel, 1962).

Introduction

7

subject as Schulz and supported many of his findings.26 For example, Betz shares Schulz’s conclusions that the ἀκολουθεῖν language of the Gospels stems from a Palestinian–Jewish origin, while the notion of mimesis is Hellenistic in origin. They also agree that although the verb ἀκολουθεῖν does not mean ‘to imitate’, the meaning is often implied.27 In these detailed studies, Betz does not really deal with the Johannine literature,28 while Schulz’s treatment of the Johannine literature is limited to a few pages. Regarding nachfolgen, Schulz contends that ἀκολουθεῖν is synonymous with πιστεύειν in John’s Gospel but he does not examine whether ἀκολουθεῖν has connotations of mimesis (for this, see Section 4.1).29 In relation to nachahmen in John, Schulz notes some examples of the believer’s mimesis of Jesus and God – mainly in relation to the love command.30 In a succinct overview on the imitation of Christ in the New Testament, Stephen Smalley builds on the work of Tinsley and suggests that Israel’s call to imitate ‘the way of God’ continues in the teaching of Jesus, for example in his statement that he is ἡ ὁδός (John 14:6).31 Smalley then remarks, ‘Nowhere is the depth of commitment associated with the concept of imitatio Christi made more apparent than in the Fourth Gospel.’32 He briefly mentions several occurrences of mimesis in John’s Gospel: the believer–Jesus relationship is an imitation of the Son–Father relationship (cf. 5:19 and 15:5, and 12:49 and 17:8); the believer–Jesus mimesis indicated by the footwashing episode (13:1-20); the unity between Christians is a mimesis of the unity of the Godhead (17:20-22); the disciples’ commission is mimetic (20:21).33 He then states (rather than explains) that this is ‘a mimesis made possible only by the agency of the Spirit’.34 Although Smalley recognizes the significance of John’s Gospel to the concept of mimesis, due to the limitations of a short article he can only touch on the subject – but Johannine scholarship has not developed his ideas. Looking back at the 1960s, it appears that the most significant studies for our investigation are those of de Boer, Larsson, Schulz and Betz.35 While de 26. Hans Dieter Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament, BHT 37 (Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1967). 27. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 332–34; Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung, 40, 42–43. 28. He briefly touches on ἀκολουθεῖν in John’s Gospel (Nachfolge und Nachahmung, 36–40). 29. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 172–76. 30. Ibid., 243–47, 298–302. 31. Stephen Smalley, ‘The Imitation of Christ in the New Testament’, Themelios 3 (1965): 14–15. 32. Smalley, ‘Imitation of Christ’, 16. 33. Ibid., 16. 34. Ibid., 17 (original emphasis). 35. For a critical evaluation of the work of Larsson and Betz, see Soon-Gu Kwon, Christ as Example: The Imitatio Christi Motive in Biblical and Christian Ethics, Uppsala Studies in Social Ethics 21 (Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 1998), ch. 2.

8

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Boer and Larsson studied the concept of the imitation in Paul and only briefly touched on the concept of ‘following Jesus’ in the Gospels, Schulz and Betz each examined the continuity between the notion of ‘following Jesus’ in the Gospels and that of imitation in Paul. The main difference between them is twofold. First, while Larsson looks at the Jewish rabbi–pupil relationship as the basis for understanding the Pauline imitation of Christ, Schulz and Betz contend that the Hellenistic concept of mimesis is the proper background.36 Second, Schulz and Betz see mainly philological and conceptual discontinuity coupled with some theological-hermeneutical continuity between the language of ‘following Jesus’ (in the Gospels) and ‘imitating Christ’ (in Paul),37 whereas de Boer and Larsson view following Jesus and imitating Christ as partially synonymous. Larsson views imitation as being a part of following, vis-à-vis de Boer, who contends that the language of ‘following Jesus’ belongs to the concept of mimesis since following Jesus involves becoming like him. Johannine scholarship has given little attention to these studies – perhaps understandably – since they deal primarily with Pauline literature. Nevertheless, I will show in Section 1.2 that the studies by de Boer, Larsson, Schulz and Betz raise issues that prove to be crucial to our enquiry on the subject in the Johannine writings. 1.1.2 The Dark Era: There Is No Johannine Ethics (1970–2000) We noted early on that Johannine ethics is a problematic area for scholars. Since the 1970s, many have contended that the Johannine Corpus contains little or no ethical content, and that even its most (or only) explicit ethic (‘to love one another’) raises a host of questions.38 For many, the Johannine community’s alleged inward or sectarian outlook has produced a narrow group ethos or

36. See Kwon, Christ as Example, 82. De Boer holds a mediating position. 37. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 332–35; Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung, 3, 42–43, 186–89. For Schulz and Betz, die Nachahmung Christi results from the Hellenistic interpretation of die Nachfolge Jesu, that is, early Christians took the theologicalhermeneutical step of continuing or converting the Palestinian–Jewish concept of following Jesus into the Hellenistic concept of imitating Christ. 38. For example, J. Leslie Houlden, Ethics in the New Testament (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), 36, 38; Jack T. Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 91; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (London: Burns & Oates, 1975), 313, 322; Allen Verhey, The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 143; Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 304; David Rensberger, Johannine Faith and Liberating Community (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 124–30; Willi Marxsen, New Testament Foundations for Christian Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 286; Frank J. Matera, New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 92–94; Meeks, ‘Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist’, 318.

Introduction

9

conventicle ethics.39 In short, the consensus in Johannine scholarship is that Jesus’ love command in 13:34 is pretty much the only (explicit) ethic (albeit perhaps as the précis of his commandments) in the Gospel or even entire Johannine Corpus. Very few scholars have a broader view of Johannine ethics – but, mimesis is never mentioned.40 1.1.3 The Quest for Johannine Ethics (2000–2012) Not everyone subscribed to the majority view, however. While many continue to uphold the consensus,41 a few scholars have endeavoured to show the presence and scope of ethics in the Johannine literature. They are the pioneers in the quest for Johannine ethics. And while not all of them have been widely noticed or won much support,42 some have had more success and their efforts paved the way for

39. This has been well-documented in Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 47–51. 40. Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987), 486– 527; Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1996), 138–57; Johannes Nissen, ‘Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John’, in New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives, ed. Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen, JSNTSup 182 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 194–212. 41. D. Moody Smith, ‘Ethics and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel’, in Word, Theology, and Community in John, ed. John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper and Fernando F. Segovia (St Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002), 109–22; Udo Schnelle, ‘Johanneische Ethik’, in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum, ed. Christfried Böttrich, GthF 11 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006), 309–27; Andreas J. Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 509–24; Christopher W. Skinner, ‘Virtue in the New Testament: The Legacies of John and Paul in Comparative Perspective’, in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera, ed. Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson, ECL 7 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 301–24. They confine themselves almost exclusively to the love ethic. 42. For example, Jey J. Kanagaraj, ‘The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue’, TynBul 52 (2001): 33–60; János Bolyki, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, Communio Viatorum 45 (2003): 198–208; Rainer Hirsch-Luipold, ‘Prinzipiell-theologische Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur’, in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ, ed. Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Ruben Zimmermann, CNNTE I, WUNT 238 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 289–307. Kanagaraj argues that although John stresses the love command, the Decalogue also influences and informs his ethical teachings by showing how each commandment of the Decalogue finds expression in John’s Gospel. In my view, however, Kanagaraj’s analysis is forced and does not naturally derive from the Johannine text. Bolyki employs the theory of ethical conflicts in ancient dramas to show that the conflict in the Gospel of John is also ethical in nature and part of John’s moral story. While Bolyki’s case has much to commend, he is less successful in outlining the scope or nature of Johannine ethics. Hirsch-Luipold notes that the nature of Johannine ethics is

10

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

a new era in Johannine ethics. The most notable among them is Jan van der Watt who, often in collaboration with Ruben Zimmermann, has persistently pursued the topic of Johannine ethics since 2006.43 Although Jan van der Watt’s efforts to demonstrate the existence and nature of Johannine ethics came to the notice of scholarship during the period 2006–2012, his interest in Johannine ethics began to show earlier. In 1999, he wrote an article on ethics in 1 John, arguing that ‘John develops his ethical thought by using a coherent network of metaphors related to first-century family life’.44 Already here, van der Watt shows that Johannine ethics is much broader than just ‘brotherly love’. Then, in 2000, he produced a monograph on John’s metaphorical language in the context of ancient family imagery, in which he shows that much of John’s language about the believer’s life in the divine family has ethical aspects.45 Although the terms ‘mimesis’ or ‘imitation’ are absent in the book, his use of ‘copy’, ‘pattern’ and ‘example’ suggests that he recognizes the presence of the concept of mimesis in John’s language. He explains, for example, that education was an important aspect of family life in antiquity, where children were expected to follow the example of the father. So also, in the Gospel of John, the Father shows the Son all that he is doing and the Son copies him. Jesus is the revealer of God and sets the example for the disciples, for how to live in the divine family. Thus, the disciples observe and copy Jesus’ actions and words. Besides, the unity, love and knowledge that exists between Father and Son is the pattern for the unity, love and knowledge between believers and Jesus, and among believers.46 I will now examine the numerous articles written by Jan van der Watt between 2006 and 2012 for their contribution towards our enquiry.

theological (it is rooted in the concept of God), christological (Jesus is the only access to the truth of God) and responsive (human action is always in reaction to God’s prior action in Christ). He also outlines four forms of (ethical) imperatives in John’s Gospel. However, it is puzzling that he does not detect the various mimetic imperatives (even when he identifies John 13:14 and 15:12 as imperatives, he does not mention the mimesis). In Chapter 2, I identify five mimetic imperatives in the Gospel of John and five in the Johannine Epistles (see also Appendix 1). 43. Jan Gabriël van der Watt has been Professor in Exegesis of New Testament and Source Texts of Early Christianity at the Radboud University in Nijmegen, the Netherlands since 2009. Prior to that, he was Professor of New Testament at the University of Pretoria in South Africa for twenty-three years. Ruben Zimmermann has been Professor of New Testament at the Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität in Mainz, Germany since 2009. 44. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Ethics in First John: A Literary and Socioscientific Perspective’, CBQ 61 (1999): 491–511 (quotation is from p. 491). 45. Jan G. van der Watt, Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John, BibInt 47 (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 236–38, 266–93, 304–37. 46. Van der Watt, Family of the King, 238, 245, 262, 271, 279, 286, 288–89, 291, 305–6, 311, 313–14, 329, 343–44, 355, 367.

Introduction

11

In a 2006 article, Jan van der Watt argues that John develops his ethical views inter alia by means of imagery, using the examples of filial imagery in John 8 and the dying grain of wheat in John 12:24-26.47 While he successfully demonstrates how imagery is a suitable vehicle for ethics in the Gospel of John, I will show that both texts also contain the idea of mimesis (see Sections 4.2 and 4.5). Again in 2006, in two near-identical articles, van der Watt suggests examining Johannine ethics through the concept of ethos or behaviour.48 It is here that he shows his awareness of the Johannine concept of mimesis when he remarks in a footnote, ‘Imitation of Jesus forms a central concept in the Gospel. It is a comprehensive theme that cannot be dealt with in detail here.’49 Then, in 2007, van der Watt explains the idea of the Son’s education by the Father in 5:19-23 against the backdrop of ancient education.50 Although this is the paradigmatic passage in the Johannine literature that expresses the divine Son–Father mimesis (see Section 3.1.2), van der Watt merely speaks in terms of analogy.51 In a 2009 article, van der Watt explores the moral aspects of the Johannine terms ‘good’ and ‘truth’.52 This article is not relevant to our study because although ‘good’ and ‘truth’ are important ethical terms, John does not use them to indicate mimesis. In 2010, van der Watt explores the Johannine language for its ethical potential, and he focuses (again) on John 8 and its backdrop of ancient education.53 While mimesis does

47. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, ed. Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann, WUNT 200 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 421–48. 48. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John’, ZNW 97 (2006): 147–76; idem, ‘Radical Social Redefinition and Radical Love: Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John’, in Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament, ed. Jan G. van der Watt, BZNW 141 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 107–34. Van der Watt acknowledges the influence of Michael Wolter in this area (‘Ethics and Ethos’, 150 n. 26). 49. Van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 171 n. 131. Earlier, he mentions that the ‘love between believers is patterned on the exemplary love of the Father and the Son’ and ‘Jesus’ love is . . . modelled on the love of God’ (Ibid., 160). 50. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Der Meisterschüler Gottes (von der Lehre des Sohnes) – John 5,19-23’, in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu, ed. Ruben Zimmermann, (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), 745–54. 51. ‘Was Gott Jesus vormacht, ist daher nur analog dem, was ein gewöhnlicher Vater seinem Sohn vormacht. In der Parabel wird nur mittels einer Analogie ausgesagt, dass der Vater zeigt, gibt und tut, aber die Aufmerksamkeit konzentriert sich nicht darauf, wie er das genau tut’ (‘Meisterschüler Gottes’, 747 (original emphasis)). In Section 3.1.4, I will explore the ‘how’ of the Son–Father mimesis. 52. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘The Good and the Truth in John’s Gospel’, in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes: Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz, ATANT 97 (Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 317–33. 53. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John’, in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness

12

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

not explicitly feature in this article, van der Watt does use phrases that betray the concept: ‘The example Jesus sets is that of an obedient son that “copies” his father’; believers ‘should follow the example of Jesus’; ‘Jesus is the ultimate ethical example for believers to follow.’54 In 2011, van der Watt looks at faith as a moral work and sin as being the opposite, as well as the idea of ‘good’ (for which John prefers the term ‘truth’), but he does not touch on the idea of mimesis.55 In these articles, van der Watt outlines a useful approach to Johannine ethics and successfully explores the nature and scope of Johannine ethics. However, he has not capitalized on his observation of the presence of mimesis in the Johannine literature. His awareness of the Johannine concept of mimesis has been latent since 2000, but it has not broken the surface in his many publications on Johannine ethics during this period of his scholarship.56 Another important contributor in the area of (Johannine) ethics is Ruben Zimmermann. The paths of Jan van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann crossed first in 2003 and their continued collaboration resulted in three WUNT volumes arising from three conferences.57 Zimmermann spent part of his Humboldt research fellowship during 2008–2010 at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, where Jan van der Watt was based. During this time, he produced an important article in which he proposed a new way of looking at New Testament ethics – the ‘implicit ethics’ approach.58 Zimmermann calls the ethics of the New Testament writings ‘implicit’ because ‘the New Testament authors themselves render no

of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, ed. Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt, CNNTE II, WUNT II/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 139–67. 54. Van der Watt, ‘Ethics through the Power of Language’, 159–60. 55. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘The Gospel of John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour’, In die Skriflig 45 (2011): 431–47. The gist of his section on the concept of good/truth is identical to that in his 2009 article (see n. 52). 56. In 2014 and 2016, however, van der Watt wrote on mimesis in 1 John (see Section 1.1.4). 57. The 2005 conference in Eisenach, Germany resulted in Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann, eds., Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language, WUNT 200 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006); the 2008 conference in Pretoria, South Africa resulted in Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt, eds., Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings, CNNTE II, WUNT II/296 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); and the 2010 conference in Nijmegen, The Netherlands resulted in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John. 58. Ruben Zimmermann, ‘The “Implicit Ethics” of New Testament Writings: A Draft on a New Methodology for Analysing New Testament Ethics’, Neotestamentica 43 (2009): 399– 423. The seeds for his theory on ‘implicit ethics’ were sown in an earlier article: ‘Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer “impliziten Ethik” des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes’, Theologische Literaturzeitung 132 (2007): 259–84. A session of the Biblical Ethics Unit at the 2014 SBL Annual Meetings in San Diego was devoted to the discussion of Zimmermann’s model of ‘implicit ethics’.

Introduction

13

systematic account for norms of action and contexts of reason that would be similar perhaps to the ethics of Aristotle’, but ‘they still have an order of values and ethical argumentation’.59 He then outlines a hermeneutical model of ‘implicit ethics’ that contains no less than eight dimensions.60 In 2012, Jan van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann jointly edited the first volume of essays on Johannine ethics.61 This landmark study marks the inauguration of a new era of Johannine ethics. The first two essays, by Michael Labahn and Ruben Zimmermann, firmly put the nail in the ‘no-Johannine-ethics’ coffin.62 In his essay, Zimmermann contends that his model of ‘implicit ethics’ also applies to the Gospel of John, although he does not show how.63 In addition, while Zimmermann speaks of the disciples’ need to ‘follow his [Jesus’] example and act similarly’ and ‘take on the roles and images of Jesus’, he stops short of calling it mimesis; in fact, he says later that ‘this role model Christology should not be confused with a misunderstood imitatio ethics’.64 The remaining essays explore various aspects of Johannine ethics. However, none of them deals with mimesis. I must now draw attention to the contributions of Dirk van der Merwe and Richard Burridge to the topic of Johannine mimesis.65 In a little-known article, Dirk G. van der Merwe explores five aspects that, he claims, contribute to the concept of imitatio Christi in the Gospel of John: (1) to follow (ἀκολουθεῖν) Jesus; (2) Jesus as an example (ὑπόδειγμα) for his disciples; (3) the comparative particle καθώς; (4) the disciples’ task; (5) the Spirit-Paraclete.66 Although he rightly identifies the presence of mimesis in the Gospel of John, his treatment of the concept is cursory. He fails to anchor the concept firmly in concrete Johannine words and does not go to the heart of the matter. Regarding aspects 1, 4 and 5, he does not establish the idea of mimesis. For example, he speaks of ‘following Jesus’ in terms of the disciples continuing and participating in Jesus’ mission rather than imitating

59. Zimmermann, ‘ “Implicit Ethics” ’, 403. 60. Ibid., 404–16. He explores the first aspect of his approach (the linguistic form of an ethical statement) in more detail in ‘Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21-33 as Test Case’, in Zimmermann and van der Watt, Moral Language in the New Testament, 19–50. 61. Van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John (see n. 8 for details). 62. Labahn, ‘ “It’s Only Love”’, 3–43; Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 44–80. At the same time, Ruben Zimmermann produced a similar essay on Johannine ethics in another volume: ‘Narrative Ethik im Johannesevangelium am Beispiel der Lazarus-Perikope Joh 11’, in Narrativität und Theologie im Johannesevangelium, ed. Jörg Frey and Uta Poplutz, BThSt 130 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012), 133–70. 63. Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 61–63. 64. Ibid., 69, 71, 73. 65. Even though their aim is not to make a case for Johannine ethic as such, their contributions fit chronologically in this section. 66. Van der Merwe, ‘Imitatio Christi’ (see n. 12 for details).

14

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Jesus.67 Regarding aspect 2, van der Merwe correctly notes the mimesis in John 13:15 where Jesus is and sets an ὑπόδειγμα for his disciples, but his attempts to show where Jesus is an exemplar for his disciples elsewhere in the Gospel lacks precision.68 Regarding aspect 3, while van der Merwe rightly notes the significance of καθώς in John’s Gospel, he does not clarify when καθώς indicates mimesis and when merely comparison. In short, van der Merwe notes many parallels between Jesus’ actions and the actions expected from the disciples, but he regards these parallels too often as instances of mimesis without carefully establishing whether this is indeed the case.69 Richard Burridge also deserves mention. Although his focus is not on John, his 2007 study on New Testament ethics, titled Imitating Jesus, indicates it might be relevant for us.70 The timing of its publication means he would not have been aware of the work of van der Watt and Zimmermann, and hence he develops an approach to Johannine ethics parallel to theirs. Where van der Watt and Zimmermann look at the ethos and implicit ethics of the Johannine writings, Burridge approaches Johannine ethics via genre. His earlier, ground-breaking work focused on the Gospels being ancient Graeco-Roman biographies (βιοί or ‘lives’).71 Burridge now extends his findings to the area of ethics. He argues that although the primary purpose of ancient biographies is to describe a person’s life and death rather than to provide ethical instruction, they often present the subject’s moral character as an example for imitation.72 However, while Burridge uses the term ‘imitation’ as a lens to explore New Testament ethics, he does not adequately unpack the (Johannine) concept. He merely draws attention to the mimetic aspect in the footwashing and the love command in John 13.73 Notably, Burridge was not the first to argue that if we view the Gospels as βιοί of Jesus, then imitating him is a logical implication.

67. Ibid., 133. 68. Ibid., 134–39. For example, it is unclear to me how the light/darkness motif and the shepherd motif indicate mimesis. The assertion, ‘As they [the people of the world] hated Jesus, so will they hate his disciples’ (p. 136) merely indicates analogy that the world treats Jesus’ followers similarly to how it treated Jesus. Likewise, the assertion, ‘The sheep then follow the shepherd and identify fully with the shepherd and his deeds’ (p. 136) does not add up to saying that the sheep imitate the shepherd. The only connection, which is certainly not mimetic in nature, is that the shepherd calls and leads whereas the sheep listen and follow. 69. He also does not explore the divine Son–Father mimesis or the concept of mimesis in 1 John (although he is aware of both aspects). 70. See n. 11 for bibliographical details. 71. Richard A. Burridge, What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004). 72. Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 28–29. 73. Ibid., 343–45. A later article does not add anything to the discussion: Richard A. Burridge, ‘Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to the Ethics of the Historical Jesus and John’s Gospel’, in John, Jesus, and History. Vol. 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel,

Introduction

15

In 2003, David Capes made a similar case – based on, inter alia, Burridge’s 1992 work (see Section 1.1.5).74 In sum, the sustained efforts of Jan van der Watt, aided by Ruben Zimmermann, in the area of Johannine ethics eventually caused the tide to turn in 2012 (see Section 1.1.4). With their volume Rethinking the Ethics of John, they successfully showed the presence of ethics in John’s Gospel. Apart from this quest for Johannine ethics, we found two contributions to the topic of Johannine mimesis but they did not add a great deal to our subject. 1.1.4 A New Era of Johannine Ethics (2012–present) With the publication of the first volume on Johannine ethics in 2012, Johannine scholarship sought to explore Johannine ethics in earnest.75 I entered the arena of Johannine ethics in 2012 with two papers exploring the viability of Johannine mimesis, and I have regularly contributed to the topic since.76 In 2013, unaware of the 2012 volume, Mira Stare and Jörg Frey produced important essays on aspects of Johannine ethics, but not mimesis.77 Soon after, in 2014, Karl Weyer-Menkhoff

ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 281–90. 74. David B. Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre’, BBR 13 (2003): 1–19. Professor Helen Bond (University of Edinburgh) is currently also looking at mimesis and genre – in the Gospel of Mark. 75. In 2013, the Johannine Literature Section of the SBL Annual Meetings devoted, for the first time, an entire session to Johannine ethics, including my paper ‘The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics’ (see below). 76. I produced the following papers and essays between 2012 and 2016: ‘Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or Creative Articulation?’ (paper presented in the Johannine Seminar at the British New Testament Conference in London, September 2012, and at the combined New Testament seminar of the Johannes-Gutenberg-Universität Mainz and the GoetheUniversität Frankfurt, April 2012); ‘Actualizing the Love Command Through Mimesis in the Johannine Literature’ (paper presented in the Program Unit ‘Ethics, Love and the Other in Early Christianity’ at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Chicago, November 2012); ‘The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics’ (paper presented in the Johannine Literature Section at the Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Baltimore, November 2013); ‘Mimesis in John 13’ (see n. 12); ‘Mimetic Ethics in the Johannine Literature’ (paper presented at the 70th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas in Amsterdam, July 2015); ‘Mimetic Ethics in the Gospel of John’ (see n. 12); ‘Moral Transformation in the Johannine Writings’ (paper presented in the Johannine Seminar at the British New Testament Conference in Chester, September 2016). 77. Mira Stare, ‘Der Lebensbegriff als ethische Norm im Johannesevangelium’, in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut–Leben–Leib–Tugend, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp and Ruben Zimmermann, CNNTE IV, WUNT 313 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 257–80; Jörg Frey, ‘ “Ethical” Traditions, Family Ethos, and Love in the Johannine

16

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

explored the concept of Handelns (‘actions, deeds’) in the Gospel of John but did not touch on mimesis.78 In 2015, Fredrik Wagener (like Weyer-Menkhoff, also a student of Ruben Zimmermann) employed narrative ethics to examine a few Johannine characters, and while he occasionally uses the term ‘mimetische Ethik’, he does not unpack the concept.79 In 2017, a second collection of essays on Johannine ethics appeared, edited by Sherri Brown and Christopher Skinner, but once again without the topic of mimesis.80 Jan van der Watt has continued working in the area of Johannine ethics.81 I draw attention to his article on mimesis in 1 John in Afrikaans in the little-known journal In die Skriflig. Exploring four mimetic examples in 1 John (to behave like Jesus (1 John 2:6); to be righteous like God and Jesus (1 John 2:29; 3:7); to be pure like Jesus (1 John 3:3); to love like God and Jesus (1 John 4:11; 3:16)), he argues that (i) John’s presentation of mimesis corresponds to that in Graeco-Roman antiquity; (ii) mimesis is not mechanical replication but a creative expression of the character and attitude of the original model; (iii) mimesis finds practical expression in the context of God’s family.82 In 2016, van der Watt developed this

Literature’, in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts, ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden, STAR 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 167–203. 78. Weyer-Menkhoff, Ethik des Johannesevangeliums (see n. 9 for details). 79. Fredrik Wagener, Figuren as Handlungsmodelle: Simon Petrus, die samaritische Frau, Judas und Thomas als Zugänge zu einer narrative Ethik des Johannesevangeliums, CNNTE VI, WUNT II/408 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015) (see the Sachregister, s.v.). 80. Brown and Skinner, Johannine Ethics. 81. Jan G. van der Watt, ‘Reflections on doing what is good and true in the Gospel of John’, in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut–Leben–Leib–Tugend, ed. Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp and Ruben Zimmermann, CNNTE IV, WUNT 313 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 73–92 (this article closely resembles his 2009 article (see n. 52)); idem, ‘ “Working the Works of God”: Identity and Behaviour in the Gospel of John’, in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer, ed. Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert-Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit and Arie Zwiep, NovTSup 149 (Brill: Leiden, 2013), 135–50 (this article overlaps with his 2011 article (see n. 55); his conclusion that Jesus ‘serves as an ethical example for what a believer ought to be and do’ on p. 142 comes closest to the idea of mimesis); idem, ‘On the Ethics of 1 John’, in Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles, ed. R. Alan Culpepper and Paul N. Anderson (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature Press, 2014), 197–222; idem, ‘Laying Down Your Life for Your Friends’, JECH 4 (2014): 167–80; idem, ‘Navolging van Jesus’; idem, ‘The Ethical Implications of 2 John 10-11’, Verbum et Ecclesia 36.1 (2015): 1–7, doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/ve.v36i1.1483; idem, ‘ “Breek die Tempel af ”. Etiese dimensies in Johannes 2:13–22?’, HTS Theological Studies 71.1 (2015): 1–10, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts. v71i1.3003; idem, ‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’; idem, ‘Reciprocity’ (these last two essays overlap significantly with his ‘Navolging van Jezus’). 82. Van der Watt, ‘Navolging van Jezus’, 1–8.

Introduction

17

article and made it available in English in two publications.83 While I arrived at a similar understanding of John’s concept of mimesis independent of van der Watt, his introduction to the concept of mimesis in 1 John is helpful and I will expand on various aspects of it.84 1.1.5 Contemporary Non-Johannine Studies on Mimesis (1970–present) Ironically, outside of Johannine scholarship and while there was a silence on Johannine ethics, there was no lack of studies on mimesis, especially in the Pauline literature.85 I will highlight the most significant ones for our study.

83. Van der Watt, ‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 415–40; idem, ‘Reciprocity’, 257–76 (see n. 12 for details). In his 2016 essay, ‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, he expanded his 2014 article: (i) he added a mimetic example – to walk in the light as God is in the light (1 John 1:5, 7); (ii) he expanded his previous second example by relating the mimesis in 1 John 3:12 to the mimetic idea of being righteous like God and Jesus; (iii) he added ‘to die like Jesus’ to his fourth example ‘to love like God and Jesus’. However, I do not consider 1 John 1:7 an example of mimesis because two different verbs are used (to walk versus to be), so the comparative idea indicated by ὡς is that both the believers’ conduct and God’s existence occur in the realm of light (ἐν τῷ φωτί). If there is an implied mimesis, I consider it too weak to include. Moreover, van der Watt has overlooked two other mimetic occurrences in 1 John  – the existential mimesis in 1 John 3:2 and 4:17 (see my Sections 2.2 and 4.4.2). In his other 2016 essay, ‘Reciprocity’, the section on mimesis is identical to his 2014 article ‘Navolging van Jezus’ but he adds a section on reciprocity, which I will deal with in Section 2.1. 84. In my 2012 paper ‘Mimesis in John 13’, which was published in 2014 (see n. 76 for details), I have argued extensively that mimesis is a creative, cognitive process (see further Section 4.2). In my 2013 paper ‘The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics’ (see n. 76 for details), I argued that mimesis is a dominant form of behaviour in the divine family (see further Sections 5.2–5.3). 85. Lindars, ‘Imitation of God’, 394–402; Boykin Sanders, ‘Imitating Paul: 1 Cor 4:16’, HTR 74 (1981): 353–63; Rainer Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der Evangelien-Uberlieferung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1981); David M. Stanley, ‘Imitation in Paul’s Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to Jesus and to His Own Christian Foundations’, in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare, ed. P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984), 127–41; William S. Kurz, ‘Kenotic Imitation of Paul and of Christ in Philippians 2 and 3’, in Discipleship in the New Testament, ed. Fernando F. Segovia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 103–26; Robert A. Wild, ‘“Be Imitators of God”: Discipleship in the Letter to the Ephesians’, in Segovia, Discipleship in the New Testament, 127–43; Thomas Söding, ‘Die Nachfolgeforderung Jesu im Markusevangelium’, TTZ 94 (1985): 292–310; Michael Griffiths, The Example of Jesus (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1985); Benjamin Fiore, The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles, AnBib 105 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986); John Laurance, ‘The Eucharist as the Imitation of Christ’, TS 47 (1986): 286–96; Webster, ‘Imitation of Christ’, 95–120; Birger Gerhardsson ‘Agape and Imitation of Christ’, in Jesus,

18

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

the Gospels, and the Church: Festschrift W.R. Farmer, ed. E.P. Sanders (Macon: Mercer, 1987), 163–76; Adele Reinhartz, ‘On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation: “Mimetai Mou Ginesthe – Become Imitators of Me” ’, Studies in Religion 16 (1987): 393–403; Elizabeth A. Castelli, Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991); J.L. Boyce, ‘Graceful Imitation: “Imitators of Us and the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1:6)’, Word & World Supplement 1 (1992): 139–46; Stephen E. Fowl, ‘Imitation of Paul/of Christ’, in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993), 428–31; Jo-Ann A. Brant, ‘The Place of Mimēsis in Paul’s Thought’, Studies in Religion 22 (1993): 285–300; John Howard Yoder, The Politics of Jesus, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), ch. 7; Linda L. 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 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 120–42; Gerald F. Hawthorne, ‘The Imitation of Christ: Discipleship in Philippians’, in Longenecker, Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament, 163–79; Andrew D. Clarke, ‘ “Be Imitators of Me”: Paul’s Model of Leadership’, TynBul 49 (1998): 329–60; Kwon, Christ as Example; Brian Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic ‘I’: Personal Example as Literary Strategy, LNTS 177 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999); Robert L. Plummer, ‘Imitation of Paul and the Church’s Missionary Role in 1 Corinthians’, JETS 44 (2001): 219–35; Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 1–19; Seyoon Kim, ‘Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10)’, BBR 13 (2003): 193– 226; Benjamin Fiore, ‘Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation’, in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, ed. J.P. Sampley (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003), 228– 57; Hans Jürgen Milchner, Nachfolge Jesu und Imitatio Christi: die theologische Entfaltung der Nachfolgethematik seit den Anfängen der Christenheit bis in die Zeit der devotio moderna – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung religionspädagogischer Ansätze, RKK 11 (Münster: LIT, 2004); Philipe Nicolet, ‘Le Concept d’imitation de l’apôtre dans la correspondance paulinienne’, in Paul, une théologie en construction, ed. Andreas Dettwiler, Jean-Daniel Kaestli and Daniel Marguerat, Le Monde de la Bible 51 (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004), 393–415; Octavian D. Baban, On the Road Encounters in Luke–Acts: Hellenistic Mimesis and Luke’s Theology of the Way, PBMS (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006); Willard M. Swartley, Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 356–76 (on mimesis in the New Testament); Victor A. Copan, ‘Μαθητής and Μιμητής: Exploring an Entangled Relationship’, BBR 17 (2007): 313–23; D. Andrew Kille, ‘Imitating Christ: Jesus as Model in Cognitive Learning Theory’, in Text and Community: Essays in Memory of Bruce M. Metzger, ed. J. Harold Ellens (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007), 251–63; Susan Eastman, ‘Imitating Christ Imitating Us: Paul’s Educational Project in Philippians’, in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honour of Richard B. Hays, ed. J.R. Wagner, C.K. Rowe and A.K. Grieb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 427–51; Graham Houston, Leading by Example: Peter’s Way for the Church Today (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008); Michael Jensen, ‘Imitating Paul, Imitating Christ: How does imitation work as a moral concept?’, Churchman 124.4 (2010): 17–36; Yung Suk Kim, A Theological Introduction to Paul’s Letters (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011), ch. 7 (titled ‘ “Imitators” [Mimetai] in 1 Cor 4:16 and 11:1: A New

Introduction

19

Soon-Gu Kwon sees the imitation of Christ as being central to New Testament ethics: Since Christian faith and practice are based on the person and work of Jesus, the imitation of Christ is one of the most basic tasks of all Christians. The ideal of the imitation of Christ is second to none as a starting point for Christian ethics. Therefore Christian ethics should help Christians to live according to the will of God: in short, as Jesus himself lived.86

Elsewhere he writes, The Bible is primarily for moral life through Christian ethical reflection and the New Testament does not stand before Christians as merely a source for historical facts on Jesus. It really focuses on (individual or communal) transformation through the example of Christ more than a simple supply of (historical or theological) information for the believing community.87

Kwon’s contribution to the subject is a relational interpretation of the imitation of Christ. Christians are in relationship with Christ and each other through the imitation of Christ. ‘Living in the imitation of Christ requires imagination about how Jesus might have acted in a given relationship with other persons.’88

Reading of Threefold Embodiment’); Clifford A. Barbarick, ‘The Pattern and the Power: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter’ (PhD diss., Baylor University, 2011); Jason G. Weaver, ‘Paul’s Call to Imitation: The Rhetorical Function of the Theme of Imitation in its Epistolary Context’ (PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 2013); Jason B. Hood, Imitating God in Christ: Recapturing a Biblical Pattern (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013); H.H. Drake Williams III, ‘“Imitate Me”: Interpreting Imitation in 1 Corinthians in Relation to Ignatius of Antioch’, Perichoresis 11 (2013): 75–93; James R. Harrison, ‘The Imitation of the “Great Man” in Antiquity: Paul’s Inversion of a Cultural Icon’, in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Vol. 1 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context, ed. Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts, TENTS 9 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 213–54; Peter Wick, ‘Ahmt Jesus Christus mit mir zusammen nach! (Phil 3,17): Imitatio Pauli und invitatio Christi im Philipperbrief ’, in Der Philipperbrief des Paulus in der hellenistisch-römischen Welt, ed. Jörg Frey and Benjamin Schliesser, WUNT 353 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 309–26; Paul S. Cable, ‘Imitatio Christianorum: The Function of Believers as Examples in Philippians’, TynBul 67 (2016): 105–25; various essays in Part III of Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann, eds., Metapher– Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik, CNNTE VII, WUNT 356 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016). 86. Kwon, Christ as Example, 14. 87. Ibid., 55. 88. Ibid., 194–211 (quotation from p. 210).

20

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

There is still debate about the relationship (if any) between the concept of following Jesus or discipleship in the Gospels and that of imitating Christ in the Pauline letters (see also the earlier work of de Boer, Larsson, Schulz and Betz in Section 1.1.1). Kwon chooses to engage with Larsson and Betz while examining the relationship between discipleship and imitation. Although Kwon agrees with Larsson that imitating Jesus is part of following him, he contends that Betz has the better exegetical approach.89 Gerald Hawthorne contends that discipleship involves imitation because a μαθητής voluntarily attached himself to a teacher (whether a Greek philosopher or a Jewish rabbi) to learn from him, and discipleship is less a matter of belief than of practice.90 As for Paul, though he does not use the term μαθητής, the pattern of discipleship that he outlines in Philippians, for example, is about imitating the life exemplified by Jesus.91 In response to the objection of the imitatio Christi interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11, Hawthorne replies that ‘the point Paul is making is not that Christians should attempt to become second Christs . . . but that they should strive to emulate the attitude and actions of servanthood that marked the character and conduct of the pre-existent Christ, who was also the Jesus of history’.92 Victor Copan also explores the relationship between μαθητής (in the Gospels and Acts) and μιμητής (in the Epistles), arguing that there is no ancient text that equates the two terms. Instead, imitation is subsumed under or made part of discipleship, thus supporting Edvin Larsson’s position (see Section 1.1.1).93 There are also reservations about the concept of mimesis in relation to ethics in some circles. Birger Gerhardsson observes that since Immanuel Kant’s stress on autonomous acts versus heteronomous ethics, imitations are never seen in the same way as the original. ‘A blameless ethical action must start within the acting subject itself; it must be autonomous. To imitate somebody else, even if it is the Christ, is to take on a borrowed dress; it is not genuine moral action.’94 Referring to the imitation of Christ’s love, Gerhardsson, however, contends that mimesis can be an autonomous act: Imitation means to try on a role, exemplified in an actual life of an actual person. But the concrete model does not confront us as something which is not us (heteronomous); it has its resonance in the agape which is part of all human existence. Thus if we interpret the imitation as an imitation of Christ’s agape, then it cannot be characterized as a foreign pattern pressed from without upon the imitator, a heteronomous norm. It is a total attitude, which must be internalized in a person so that it is governed from within: it becomes one’s ‘I-ideal’. In that

89. Ibid., 56–84. 90. Hawthorne, ‘Imitation of Christ’, 163–66. 91. Ibid., 166. 92. Ibid., 168–69. 93. Copan, ‘Μαθητής and Μιμητής’, 313–23. 94. Gerhardsson, ‘Agape and Imitation of Christ’, 173.

Introduction

21

way the imitation comes to maturity and becomes an independent, creative attitude, in which thinking and decisions of one’s own are necessary.95

Michael Jensen addresses the dilemma of how it is possible to imitate Jesus who is also considered to be unique (and in a sense inimitable) – an issue that troubles the Reformed tradition (see n. 4 above).96 Examining the concept of imitation in the Pauline Corpus, Jensen concludes that it is possible to imitate Christ and uphold his uniqueness at the same time because believers are to mimic primarily the mindset (φρόνησις) of Christ and then ‘work out what actions result from the attitude invoked’ rather than mimic his actions mindlessly.97 Thus, for Jensen the imitation of Christ is an intellectual activity, ‘a phronesis of analogy and imaginative performance’, where believers are at liberty to consider Christ’s mindset and attitudes, and then to enact them faithfully for the edification of the church.98 Since Christ is the model for imitation but believers are free to discern how they imitate him, Jensen is able to argue that ‘Paul teaches an imitative practice which is neither restrictively heteronomous nor completely autonomous’.99 We shall see that both Gerhardsson’s and Jensen’s views endorse our own, that mimesis consists of creative, cognitive and volitional actions for which a person is responsible rather than a mindless cloning for which one might not be held accountable. In 2003, David Capes, like Richard Burridge, made a case for seeing the Gospels as ancient biographies providing a script for imitation.100 He argues that the concept of imitating Christ was prevalent in early Christianity (before the composition of the Gospels) and that in a cultural and literary environment where it was commonplace to read biographies of remarkable virtuous lives and to seek to imitate them, the Gospels as biographies of Jesus provided early Christians with the narrative definition for what it meant to imitate Jesus.101 William Spohn explores the topic of Jesus and ethics, and his chapter ‘The Analogical Imagination’ relates to our subject.102 Based on Jesus’ command ‘Go 95. Ibid., 175. 96. Jensen, ‘Imitating Paul’, 17–36. 97. Ibid., 21, 31 (quotation from p. 31). Somewhat similarly, Yoder argues that believers should not seek to imitate Jesus in every aspect of his lifestyle (e.g. being celibate, a carpenter, a rural itinerant preacher) but in servanthood and forgiveness (Politics of Jesus, 130–31). Willard Swartley, however, argues that Yoder’s concept of imitation is too reductionistic and that other features of God or Jesus are also candidates for imitation (Covenant of Peace, 373). 98. Jensen, ‘Imitating Paul’, 31–33 (quotation from p. 31). 99. Ibid., 18. 100. Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 1–19. While Capes builds on, inter alia, Burridge’s 1992 work on the Gospels as ancient biographies, Burridge himself only develops the mimetic aspect of the Gospel genre in 2007 (see Section 1.1.3). 101. See also Jonathan T. Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 33. 102. William C. Spohn, Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics (New York: Continuum, 2007), 50–71.

22

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

and do likewise’ (Luke 10:37) and taking the Johannine footwashing as a test case, Spohn suggests that Christians are invited to use their imaginations creatively and analogically in order to re-enact Jesus’ action faithfully rather than merely repeating or copying it.103 While Spohn does not use the terms imitation or mimesis, his concept of ‘creative, analogical imagination’ correlates to my understanding of Johannine mimesis as a creative cognitive process (see Chapter 4). Yet, we will see in Chapter 2 that analogy is too broad to capture the nature of the Johannine language. Jason Hood sketches a biblical theology of imitation using three forms – the imitation of God, the imitation of Jesus, and the imitation of the saints – arguing that imitation is central to discipleship, even to being human.104 In contrast to many scholars, Hood argues that the New Testament concept of imitating Jesus is firmly rooted in the Old Testament concept of imitating God rather than a Graeco-Roman concept of mimesis.105 While Hood attempts to delineate a biblical theology of imitation, I have a few critical remarks.106 First, Hood refers only to biblical texts and does not interact with Graeco-Roman and Jewish literature on the topic, thus creating the impression that imitation is a specific Christian concept. Second, mimesis or imitation is loosely and hastily defined early on in the book – it is primarily about adopting a mindset – rather than being derived from specific terms in the text.107 As a result, Hood’s use of imitation seems closer to analogy at times. Third, while the scope of the study is impressive, it seems more like a semi-popular, systematic treatment of the subject and misses the necessary exegetical robustness and a proper grounding in the ancient world. For example, while Hood occasionally hints at Jesus imitating God,108 he never establishes it from the text and entirely ignores John 5:19-30 where the Son–Father mimesis is mentioned explicitly. Elsewhere, Hood too easily equates following Jesus with imitating him, without showing this from the text.109

1.2 Articulating the Problem Various issues emerge from the survey of literature that are important for our study on the Johannine concept of mimesis. The single most important observation is that, barring a few exceptions, the topic of mimesis in the Johannine writings is uncharted territory. Our survey of literature can be divided, topically, into two parts: (i) studies on mimesis but not on John; (ii) studies on Johannine ethics

103. Ibid., 50–54. 104. Hood, Imitating God. 105. Tinsley had already made a strong case for the New Testament concept of mimesis being rooted in the Old Testament (see Section 1.1.1), but Hood seems unaware of his work. 106. Again, Tinsley was the first to develop a ‘biblical theology’ of mimesis. 107. Hood, Imitating God, 12 (cf. 74, 132, 210). 108. Ibid., 57, 68, 138. 109. Ibid., 66, 73.

Introduction

23

but not mimesis. There simply is no detailed study on the topic to date. This is understandable because Johannine ethics has only recently become a subject of study and the first books on the subject have only just started to appear. Yet, it is surprising that scholars have missed seeing this pervasive theme in the Johannine literature. None of the essays in the two volumes on Johannine ethics – the 2012 volume edited by van der Watt and Zimmermann, and the 2017 volume edited by Brown and Skinner – touches on the subject of mimesis. Weyer-Menkhoff comes close but does not seize on the subject. In Jan van der Watt’s many publications too, the subject of mimesis stays largely untouched; only very recently, has he started to explore the subject in 1 John. On mimesis in the Gospel of John, we have only van der Merwe’s article but it needs substantiation. I have already mentioned that Richard Burridge’s work sounded promising, but it underdelivers on the subject. Apart from these, very few scholars mention or allude to the Johannine concept of mimesis and those that do mention the concept do not elaborate on it.110 It could be argued that it is because of the esoteric nature of mimesis in the Johannine literature – after all, the lexeme does not even occur, barring the isolated reference in 3 John 11 – but I will seek to show in this study that mimesis is at the heart of Johannine ethics. Besides the absence of scholarly work on Johannine mimesis, the wide-ranging studies of Tinsley, de Boer, Larsson, Schulz and Betz in the 1960s (see Section 1.1.1) raise important issues that we must consider in our study. First, we must examine whether there is a relationship between following Jesus and imitating him; if ‘following Jesus’ (in the Gospels) and ‘imitating Christ’ (in the Pauline Epistles) are different concepts. Second, we must investigate whether Johannine mimesis has more to do with Nachahmung or Nachbildung. While Schulz and Betz have focused on Nachfolge (‘following’) and Nachahmung (‘imitation’),111 I want to shift

110. For example, de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 56–57, 64; Noël Lazure, Les Valeurs Morales de la Théologie Johannique (Paris: Gabalda, 1965), 154–57; Raymond F. Collins, ‘ “A New Commandment I Give to You, That You Love One Another . . .” (John 13:34)’, in idem, Christian Morality: Biblical Foundations (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986), 106–7, 118; Matera, New Testament Ethics, 107; Patrick J. Hartin, ‘Remain in Me (John 15:5): The Foundation of the Ethical and Its Consequence in the Farewell Discourses’, Neotestamentica 25 (1991): 346–47, 353–55; Nissen, ‘Community and Ethics’, 205; Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi’, 13; Schnelle, ‘Johanneische Ethik’, 317; van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 171; idem, ‘Ethics through the Power of Language’, 159–60; Russell Pregeant, Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008), 204; Robert L. Brawley, ‘John’, in The New Testament and Ethics: A Book-by-Book Survey, ed. Joel B. Green (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 49–50; Paul A. Rainbow, Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014), 325–26, 335, 377. Schrage also points in the right direction when he asserts that ‘conformity to Jesus’ conduct is a basic theme of Johannine ethics’ (Ethics of the New Testament, 306). 111. Betz, for example, contends that the Johannine idea of imitation is expressed by ἀκολουθεῖν (and καθώς) (Nachfolge und Nachahmung, 40 n. 3, 42–43). See also Schulz,

24

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

the discussion in this study to the connection between Nachahmung (‘imitation’) and Nachbildung (‘copy’, ‘reproduction’). I will deal with the relationship between following and mimesis in Section 4.1, but the larger issue is whether mimesis has more to do with Nachahmung or Nachbildung. Third, while the Pauline correspondence contains the literal terms μιμεῖσθαι, μιμητής and συμμιμητής, explicit mimetic terminology is absent from the Johannine writings (barring the single occurrence in 3 John 11). Consequently, if mimesis is present in the Johannine literature, it will be implied and we must examine the language John uses to express this concept.

1.3 Defining Mimesis To explain how I understand mimesis in this book, I will start by delineating the conceptual background. Discourse on mimesis originated in Greek antiquity (with Plato and Aristotle) and carried on in Roman thought. Etymologically, the lexeme μιμεῖσθαι refers to the creative and orderly representation of nature through the fine arts, but in time became an important religious concept for the ancient Greeks and Romans, where man’s chief end was to imitate God.112 In everyday use, in the area of learning, children were expected to imitate their parents and pupils their teachers. Thus, besides the idea of imitating nature, Graeco-Roman antiquity also knew the idea of imitating others – whether God, parent or teacher. In the Hebrew Scriptures, though there are possible suggestions of mimesis with regard to human conduct (e.g. Gen 1:26-27; Lev 19:2; Deut 10:18-19), the concept of mimesis does not seem prevalent.113 Approaching the Common Era, however, the Greek concept of mimesis seems to have found its way into Jewish thinking

Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 332–34. In my view, however, ἀκολουθεῖν does not readily belong to John’s mimetic language; only in 13:36-37; 21:18-19 does ἀκολουθεῖν acquire mimetic meaning in that Peter will ‘follow’ (i.e. imitate) Jesus in laying down his life (see Section 4.1). See also de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 51–54. 112. See further Gunter Gebauer and Christoph Wulf, Mimesis: Culture, Art, Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 25–59; Stephen Halliwell, The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002); Potolsky, Mimesis, chs. 1–3. 113. For example, in Lev 19:2 the particle ‫ כִּי‬is causal rather than comparative (‘you will be holy because I am holy’), thus indicating that the reason for Israel’s need to be holy is YHWH’s own holiness rather than that Israel is being urged to imitate YHWH’s holiness (see also John E. Hartley, Leviticus, WBC 4 (Dallas: Word Books, 1992), 312). Others, however, contend that mimesis is in view here (Gordon J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus, NICOT 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 264–65; Baruch A. Levine, The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 125, 256–57; Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 17–22, AB 3A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 1603–6). Differently, Tinsley (Imitation of God) and Hood (Imitating God) have each argued that the New Testament

Introduction

25

because there are references to this concept in the LXX, Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo and rabbinic writings.114 In the New Testament, the terms μιμεῖσθαι, μιμητής and συμμιμητής appear, and then mainly in Paul. In the Johannine Corpus, only the term μιμεῖσθαι occurs and then just once – in 3 John 11 as a general ethical imperative to imitate good and not evil. Nevertheless, I believe that mimesis is present in Johannine thought but it is an ethical concept indicated by other literal terms. Consequently, the Johannine text rather than a Graeco-Roman model will primarily inform my understanding of the Johannine concept of mimesis.115 In this book, I deal with mimesis as a subset of ethics. My working definition of mimesis is that ‘person B represents or emulates person A in activity or state X [in order to become like person A]’. The phrase ‘in order to become like person A’ is in brackets because this relates to the believer–Jesus and believer–God mimesis (which constitute the majority of mimetic occurrences in the Johannine literature) rather than the divine Son–Father mimesis. In relation to the believer–Jesus

concept of imitating Jesus is rooted in the Old Testament concept of imitating God (see Sections 1.1.1 and 1.1.5, respectively). 114. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, ch. 3; Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung, 48–136; Castelli, Imitating Paul, ch. 3. 115. Nevertheless, once we have acquired an accurate understanding of mimesis in the Johannine literature, we will think of John’s place within the New Testament and antiquity at large. Blossom Stefaniw makes a similar point, claiming that the New Testament authors were not influenced by Graeco-Roman concepts of mimesis. Regarding Paul, she argues that ‘his thought on mimesis constitutes something of a bottle-neck, not venturing far beyond the straight imitation of religious leaders or divine beings as exemplars’. Then, looking at the New Testament as a whole, she concludes, ‘Mimesis is deployed as a rudimentary hortatory tool, with no link to textuality or pedagogy as in the classical [i.e. Graeco-Roman] tradition. New Testament literature thus constitutes something of a conceptual bottle-neck in which mimesis is reduced to its most pedestrian conceptual form. From this it will become clear that later Christian authors, at the end of the fourth century, when Christianity found itself in a much different social position to that of Paul and his followers, did not derive their mimetic ethic so much from New Testament literature as from the classical tradition in which they had been educated’ (‘A Disciplined Mind in an Orderly World: Mimesis in Late Antique Ethical Regimes’, in Volp, Horn and Zimmermann, Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis– Doxologie, 242–44 (quotations from p. 242 and p. 244, respectively)). Yet, I question her analysis that early Christianity understood mimesis as following the examples of respected individuals or God, in contrast to Graeco-Roman antiquity and later Christianity when mimesis was linked to textuality and epistemology (Stefaniw, ‘Disciplined Mind’, 244–51, 255). Harrison, on the other hand, explains that Paul drew selectively on the mimetic traditions in antiquity. While Greek philosophers perceived mimesis to occur in the areas of nature, art and moral reproduction, Paul focuses on mimesis in the third area. Harrison then shows how Paul uses mimetic language to subvert civic ethics in Graeco-Roman antiquity and promote the imitation of an alternative model – the crucified Christ (‘Imitation of the “Great Man” in Antiquity’, 213–54).

26

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

mimesis, for example, Jesus (person A) functions as a virtuous role model who sets the example (activity or state X) for the believer (person B) to imitate in order to become like him (person A).116 Mimesis as an ethical concept is therefore not an end in itself but aims at moral development. The goal of mimesis is virtue in that a person imitates someone in order to become a better person. We can call this form of ethics ‘mimetic ethics’ in as far as it relates to people’s moral behaviour or character shaped by mimesis.117

1.4 Formulating Our Aim, Plan and Approach The significance of the 2012 volume Rethinking the Ethics of John cannot be overestimated for this topic. Going against the majority view, it showed that ethics is pervasive in John’s thought. Nevertheless, it did not touch on mimesis and I will argue that the concept of mimesis is intrinsic to Johannine ethics. To put it more strongly, unless one has dealt with the concept of mimesis, one has not really dealt with Johannine ethics. The aim of this study, therefore, is to examine the concept of mimesis in the Johannine writings and to show that mimesis is at the heart of Johannine ethics. I will present a fivefold argument: (1) the concept of mimesis is prevalent in the Johannine literature and manifests itself in two forms – performative and existential mimesis; (2) the concept of mimesis is a cognitive, creative process that is central to Johannine ethics, shaping both the imitator’s behaviour and identity; (3) the paradigm for the believer–Jesus (and believer– God) mimesis is the Son–Father mimesis; (4) John’s mimetic ethics is primarily family ethics in that mimesis is the primary means that constructs and shapes the believer’s identity and behaviour within the divine family; (5) the believer’s empowerment for imitating Jesus lies in the combination of a relationship with Jesus and the Spirit’s didactic functions. The contribution of this study to the field of Johannine studies is that it provides, for the first time, a comprehensive 116. István Czachesz explains, ‘We imitate individuals of high status (called the prestige bias), because some of that behaviour might help us achieve status, too. Turning to early Christianity, this means that imitating Paul, Jesus, the apostles, martyrs, and other holy persons, who were highly esteemed by the early Church, is a normal and expectable phenomenon’ (‘From Mirror Neurons to Morality: Cognitive and Evolutionary Foundations of Early Christian Ethics’, in Volp, Horn and Zimmermann, Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis– Doxologie, 279–80 (original emphasis)). Castelli also views mimesis as transformative, in that the copy is transformed into an approximation of the model (Imitating Paul, 21–22). Van der Watt’s conclusion on mimesis in 1 John falls slightly short when he states that ‘the mimetic process aims at the unity of the different (P)persons’ (‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 438). 117. See also Ruben Zimmermann, who defines mimetic ethics as ‘die Nachahmung von Personen als Vorbilder hinsichtlich ihres Verhaltens oder Charakters’ and hence mimetic ethics is Vorbildethik (‘ethics of personal example’) (Die Logik der Liebe: Die ‘implizite Ethik’ der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefs, BThSt (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016), 91).

Introduction

27

understanding of the Johannine concept of mimesis and its inextricable relation to Johannine ethics. Our study is guided or framed by four questions: 1. What language does John use to convey the concept of mimesis? One may wonder whether this study is legitimate because the term μιμεῖσθαι or its cognates do not occur in the Johannine literature (barring 3 John 11). Hence, if there is a Johannine concept of mimesis, we must look at other literal terms to establish the semantic domain for this concept. The starting point for our study, therefore, is the Johannine text. This will be the focus of Chapter 2. 2. What is the scope, nature and workings of mimesis in the Johannine literature? Once we have established John’s mimetic language, we shall mainly use a text-centred, exegetical approach to explore the concept of mimesis in the Johannine literature. This involves a study of the participants in the mimetic process, the various forms of mimesis and its precise mechanics or workings. Related to this is the issue of whether mimesis refers to the literal replication of the original act or to a creative expression of the idea underlying the original act. Since this is the first study on mimesis in the Johannine literature, the larger part of our study will outline the concept in detail. This will be our task in Chapters 3 and 4. 3. What place does mimesis occupy in Johannine ethics? Having determined the nature of the concept of mimesis and how it works, we are in a position to consider where we should situate mimesis in the larger field of Johannine ethics. So, in Chapter 5, I seek to ascertain whether mimesis is central or peripheral to Johannine ethics. 4. What or who empowers for mimesis? In relation to the believer–Jesus mimesis, for example, the idea of imitating Jesus is a daunting prospect. How are believers to love one another with a limitless, sacrificial love that may demand the sacrifice of one’s life (13:1; 15:13; 1 John 3:16-18; 4:11)? We will discuss this in Chapter 6. In this study, I will use the term ‘believer’ to refer to anyone who has pledged allegiance to Jesus as his disciple or follower; synonymous terms are ‘disciple’, ‘Jesus follower’ or ‘devotee of Jesus’. Regarding the concept of mimesis and its suitability, I suggest that we need not distinguish between the historical disciples and later generations of believers. Whatever the original disciples observed about Jesus’ life and teaching is accessible to later believers as they hear or read the Johannine writings, aided by the Spirit as the interpreter of Jesus’ teaching. See, for example, 1 John 1:1-3, where John explains that he is communicating the divine realities that he and other eyewitnesses have tangibly observed (he refers to the senses of hearing, sight and touch) to his audience, who have not had this experience for themselves but can ‘know’ (and experience) all these realities through his written testimony.118 118. Note the tremendous claims about the believers’ knowledge in 1 John expressed, for example, by the phrase ‘(by this) we/you know that’ (1 John 2:5, 18, 21; 3:5, 14-16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2, 15, 18-20). See also my treatment of Thomas in John’s Gospel, where I argue

28

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Strictly speaking, ethics as a branch of philosophy refers to ‘a system of moral codes’ or ‘the systematic reflection upon morality’, in which case it would be impossible to speak of ethics in the New Testament. However, if we define New Testament ethics more broadly as referring to ‘the moral values and principles that govern the conduct and character of a particular group called “Christians” in relation to their God and fellow human beings, as envisaged by the New Testament writings’, there will be scope to speak meaningfully of Johannine ethics.119 While it could be argued that ethics only relates to humans, I contend that ethics extends to the divine realm because the Johannine literature presents God as a moral being, characterized by various moral attributes and behaviour in relation to humans (see Section 5.1). I must clarify that I consider ethics to be broader than behaviour and understand it to relate to identity.120 Methodologically, there are four main approaches to Johannine ethics. I will briefly elaborate on these approaches and how I draw on them eclectically. First is ethos as an analytical category for Johannine ethics.121 Although ethos usually that Thomas represents the struggle of later generation of believers who have not witnessed the resurrection of Jesus and must depend on others’ testimony. Yet, such believers are not disadvantaged; they can have a tangible experience of the risen Lord through oral or written testimony (e.g. John’s Gospel) (Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014), 293–94). See also Ulrich Luz, who argues that Matthew views μαθητής as an ecclesiological term that extends beyond a reference to the historical disciples, to Christians in general (cf. Matt 28:19) (Studies in Matthew, trans. Rosemary Selle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 115–42). 119. Cf. Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden, ‘Introduction’, in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts, ed. Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden, STAR 17 (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 6–7. See also the essays by Michael Labahn and Ruben Zimmermann in Rethinking the Ethics of John for a convincing case that ethics is much more central to Johannine thought than has been recognized so far (see n. 13 for details). Although the term ‘Christians’ is arguably anachronistic for the various groups of Jesus believers in the first two centuries CE, I shall use the term without reading the developed Christianity of the fourth century CE into it. 120. Others have also recognized that ethics is more than ‘doing’ and includes ‘being’: for example, Lisa Sowle Cahill, ‘Christian Character, Biblical Community, and Human Values’, in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation, ed. William P. Brown (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 3–17; Allan R. Bevere, Sharing in the Inheritance: Identity and the Moral Life in Colossians, JSNTSup 226 (London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 46–48; Jan G. van der Watt, ed., Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament, BZNW 141 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006); idem, ‘ “Working the Works of God”’, 135–50. For a clinical explanation of the split between ethics and identity in the modern era, see David Michael Goodman and Adriana Marcelli, ‘The Great Divorce: Ethics and Identity’, Pastoral Psychology 59 (2010): 563–83. 121. See especially van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 147–76; Michael Wolter, ‘Ethos und Identität in den paulinischen Gemeinden’, NTS 43 (1997): 430–44; idem, ‘“Let No One Seek his Own, But Each One the Other’s” (1 Corinthians 10,24): Pauline Ethics according

Introduction

29

refers to the lived-out behaviour of a particular social group, it could also refer to the moral values and expected behaviour that an author recommends in his writings. In other words, a certain ethos is embedded in the Johannine narrative which the author seeks to communicate to his readers. In Chapter 5, where I examine the moral dimension of the Johannine narrative, this would mean that we look at the beliefs, norms and values of God’s family of which believers are part. Applying this to mimesis, I suggest that the aim of mimesis is to shape and promote acceptable behaviour that corresponds to the ethos (i.e. beliefs, values and norms) of God’s family as the Johannine narrative presents it. We will see that the Johannine concept of mimesis refers primarily to the divine family dynamics where Jesus sets the example for the believer to imitate. Second is implicit ethics. Ruben Zimmermann has argued extensively that ‘there is an underlying ethics, a rational system within the New Testament writings’ which he calls the ‘implicit ethics’ of the New Testament.122 Zimmermann’s hermeneutical model of ‘implicit ethics’ readily applies to Johannine ethics. Since the New Testament text is the basis for implicit ethics, Zimmermann suggests that one must examine the linguistic form the ethical statement takes.123 In Chapter 2, I undertake a linguistic investigation of the Johannine text to determine the mimetic language used. Zimmermann also looks at the norms and values that the text mentions, including, for example, formal-ethical principles such as the golden rule and material-ethical goods such as freedom.124 I will show that the primary Johannine ethical goods are life, light, love, truth and honour (see Chapter 5), but we may add other ethical goods such as humility and service, which are developed through mimesis. This book will also examine the formal-ethical principle of mimesis. Furthermore, Zimmermann argues that since ethics is linked to judgement, there must be a ‘moral agent’ to make an ethical judgement, and the New Testament writings present various moral agents that serve as models to be imitated or avoided.125 Indeed, in the Johannine writings Jesus functions as a moral agent in that he is a model for imitation (see also on virtue ethics, below).

to 1  Corinthians’, in van der Watt, Identity, Ethics, and Ethos, 199–217; Frey, ‘ “Ethical” Traditions’, 167–203; Zimmermann, Logik der Liebe, 7–8. 122. Zimmermann, ‘ “Implicit Ethics” ’, 399–423 (quotation from p. 403). Cf. Zimmermann, Logik der Liebe, 15–18, 37–40. See also Hirsch-Luipold, ‘Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur’, 289–307. 123. Zimmermann, ‘ “Implicit Ethics”’ , 405. Zimmermann explores this aspect in more detail in ‘Ethics in the New Testament’, 19–50. He argues that there are three levels of ethics: intra-textual, inter-textual and extra-textual. On the intra-textual level, an ethical imperative need not always be a grammatical imperative; a statement which inner logic reflects an ethical mood can also function as an ethical imperative. On the inter-textual level, certain textual units may convey moral meaning, such as paraenesis, protreptic, Haustafeln, ‘virtue and vice catalogues’. On the extra-textual level, the ethical impact of a text is examined. 124. Zimmermann, ‘ “Implicit Ethics” ’, 406–8. 125. Ibid., 413–14.

30

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Third is genre. Richard Burridge and David Capes have made much of the Gospel of John belonging to the genre of the ancient Graeco-Roman biography, where the subject’s moral character is often presented as an example for imitation. While this may be a valid approach to the Gospel, it will not work for the Johannine Epistles. Nevertheless, the genre approach strengthens our case that Jesus is a model for imitation.126 Fourth is virtue ethics. We may also consider the place of mimesis in the broader discipline of ethics. Virtue ethics, deontology and consequentialism constitute the three major approaches in normative ethics. While virtue ethics is the oldest form of ethics, originating in ancient Greek philosophy (Plato, Aristotle), it became marginalized during the Age of Enlightenment, and was revived only in the late twentieth century.127 Unlike duty to rules (deontology) or the outcomes of actions (consequentialism), virtue ethics stresses moral character and the virtues that a character embodies as the basis for determining or evaluating ethical behaviour. I suggest that mimesis is akin to, even part of, virtue ethics in that the Johannine narrative presents some Johannine characters as exemplifying characteristics and virtuous behaviour that the reader might emulate, even though only the character of Jesus is explicitly presented as a model for imitation.128 I will return to this approach in Chapter 5. The first two approaches appear to be most suitable for our study of the Johannine concept of mimesis and we do not need to choose between them. The corollary of the first two approaches to Johannine ethics is that, in Zimmermann’s words, ‘ethical reflection can take place through narrative’, that is, ‘the narrative form becomes the preferred media of representation and communication of ethics’.129 Simply put, Johannine ethics is narrative ethics.130 At the same time, this

126. In fact, mimesis is foundational for all genres – epic, comedy, tragedy and biography became recognizable as literary forms because they were objects of mimesis (Potolsky, Mimesis, 52). 127. Cf. Stefaniw, who notes, ‘Mimesis is particularly fertile in the late ancient world because it engages the widespread assumption that living well, that is, attaining virtue and thus fulfilling one’s brief as a human subject, is a matter of achieving closer and closer approximation to an ideal by means of persistent discipline and self-correction relative to an established model’ (‘Disciplined Mind’, 237). 128. However, the Johannine mimetic imperatives arguably belong to deontology. For the application of virtue ethics to the Gospel of John, see Cornelis Bennema, ‘Virtue Ethics in the Gospel of John: The Johannine Characters as Moral Agents’, in Rediscovering John: Essays on the Fourth Gospel in Honour of Frédéric Manns, ed. L. Daniel Chrupcała, SBFA 80, (Milan: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2013), 167–81; idem, ‘Virtue Ethics and the Johannine Writings’, in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John, ed. Sherri Brown and Christopher W. Skinner (Minneapolis: Fortress, forthcoming 2017). 129. Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 64. 130. In moral philosophy, proponents of narrative ethics include Alasdair MacIntyre, James McClendon, Stanley Hauerwas and James Donahue. For understanding Johannine

Introduction

31

book is an exegetical-theological study of Johannine mimesis. Exegetical because, as I mentioned earlier, we must start with the Johannine text and examine the language used to convey the concept of mimesis, as well as the scope, nature and workings of mimesis. Theological because mimesis and ethics in the Johannine writings relate to the divine–human relationship, so we must examine the discourse on God or religious beliefs embedded in the Johannine writings. This study has two limitations. First, this book will focus on the ethical nature of mimesis or mimetic ethics in the Johannine literature and not deal with the aesthetic aspect of mimesis (found for example in art, music and literature),131 or literary mimesis (where one author might imitate a literary form or style from another author).132 In other words, I will explore mimesis as it relates to moral behaviour (both human and divine). Second, I have decided against exploring a fifth question, ‘What is the place of John’s concept of mimesis in the New Testament and Antiquity?’ Once we reach an adequate understanding of mimesis in the Johannine literature, we could compare it to the concept of mimesis in the Synoptics, the Pauline Corpus and other New Testament writings to determine the similarities and differences. In addition, we may explore the extent to which John’s concept of mimesis corresponds to mimesis in Graeco-Roman antiquity and the Old Testament in order to situate John accurately within its broader intellectual and cultural environment. While I plan to discuss these issues in a further volume,133 I will only sketch in Chapter 7 how we can situate John in the broader intellectual milieu of his time.

ethics as narrative ethics, see Hans Boersma, ‘A New Age Love Story: Worldview and Ethics in the Gospel of John’, CTJ 38 (2003): 103–19; Labahn, ‘ “It’s Only Love” ’, 36–41; Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 64–67. 131. For this, see, of course, the seminal work of Eric Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953), but also Halliwell, Aesthetics of Mimesis. For a critical assessment of the significance of Auerbach’s work, see Gebauer and Wulf, Mimesis, ch. 1. For the concept of mimetic hermeneutics in narrative theory, see Paul Ricoeur, ‘Mimesis and Representation’, Annals of Scholarship 2 (1981): 15–32; idem, Time and Narrative, Vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984), ch. 3. 132. For the idea of literary mimesis, see Dennis Ronald MacDonald, ‘Imitation’, in Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Ethics, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 407–10; idem, ed., Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001); Matthew Ryan Hauge, ‘The Creation of Person in Ancient Narrative and the Gospel of Mark’, in Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark, ed. Christopher W. Skinner and Matthew Ryan Hauge, LNTS 483 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014), 63–72. As a small-scale example of literary mimesis within the confines of John’s Gospel, Jo-Ann A. Brant notes how the story of the man born blind ‘imitates’ the story of Jesus (John, Paideia (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 154–55). 133. Cornelis Bennema, Mimesis as a Religio-Ethical Concept in Early Christianity: A Study of the Concept in Its Graeco-Roman and Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, forthcoming).

Chapter 2 The Johannine Mimetic Language

In biblical studies, we often work with concepts or ideas at a more abstract level to make sense of the text. While there is no problem with this approach, we must ensure that such conceptualization is grounded in the biblical text. In our case, there is no point speaking of a Johannine concept of mimesis unless we can show that this concept is rooted in ‘real’ words that John uses. Since the lexeme μιμεῖσθαι occurs only once in the Johannine writings (in 3 John 11), it is hardly surprising that scholars have not noted or studied this concept. Consequently, I must show that mimesis exists in the Johannine Corpus and that we can legitimately speak about it. In this chapter, therefore, I shall outline the Johannine mimetic language to clarify what we are looking for (Section 2.2). After that, I will analyse the data in order to observe trends, patterns and specific emphases in the Johannine concept of mimesis (Section 2.3). This chapter, therefore, is foundational for the rest of the book. Before embarking on this task, however, I must clarify my understanding of mimesis and how it differs from analogy and reciprocity.

2.1 Mimesis, Analogy and Reciprocity In Section 1.3, I articulated a working definition of Johannine mimesis, but now I will briefly expand on this in light of ancient understanding of mimesis. I will also clarify how mimesis differs from analogy and reciprocity because this will be relevant in my interaction with other scholars and for determining the nature of various Johannine texts in Section 2.2. Mimesis. Although mimesis is central to nearly all areas of human thought and action, there is no uniform definition and no criteria to distinguish it from related concepts. In their seminal account of the history of mimesis, Gunter Gebauer and Christoph Wulf go as far as to conclude that posing the question, ‘What is mimesis?,’ leads to error because it is not a homogeneous concept in history.1

1. Gebauer and Wulf, Mimesis, 309. Halliwell (Aesthetics of Mimesis, 13–16) and Potolsky (Mimesis, 1) also point out the difficulty of encapsulating the meaning of mimesis. Göran Sörbom remarks that the theory of mimesis was not a well-articulated theory in antiquity

34

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Instead, their historical reconstruction of important phases in the development of mimesis shows that ‘a spectrum of meanings of mimesis has unfolded over the course of its historical development, including the act of resembling, of presenting the self, and expression as well as mimicry, imitatio, representation, and nonsensuous similarity’.2 However, despite mimesis being a vague, ambivalent and fluid concept, it ‘moves with history, coming to expression in forms appropriate to respective historical periods’.3 One redeeming feature is that underlying the various instances of mimesis in each historical period is an Aristotelian understanding of the concept.4 In fact, Matthew Potolsky asserts that ‘the theory of mimesis remains so tied to its origins in the works of Plato and Aristotle that few thinkers before the twentieth century sought to redefine or rethink it in any substantial way’, while also acknowledging that mimesis took on different meanings and forms in different contexts.5 In Section 1.3, I explained that the Johannine concept of mimesis is not driven or informed by the term μιμεῖσθαι and its cognates (barring the single occurrence in 3 John 11) but by other terms, so we shall focus on the Johannine text and how John develops the concept rather than turning to Graeco-Roman models of mimesis to understand the Johannine concept. Having said that, the Johannine concept of mimesis may well show points of contact with mimesis in Graeco-Roman antiquity. I will explore this, however, only after we have arrived at a comprehensive understanding of Johannine mimesis (see Section 7.2). My working definition of Johannine mimesis is that ‘person B represents or emulates person A in activity or state X [in order to become like person A]’. With regard to the most frequent form of Johannine mimesis, this means that believers (person B) imitate Jesus or God (person A) in order to become like them. I will now explain how mimesis differs from related concepts such as analogy and reciprocity. Mimesis and Analogy. Analogy refers to a correspondence, resemblance or parallel between persons, actions or objects that are otherwise different.

but more a ‘fundamental outlook shared by most authors, philosophers and educated audiences’ (‘The Classical Concept of Mimesis’, in A Companion to Art Theory, ed. Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 19). 2. Gebauer and Wulf, Mimesis, 1. Elsewhere, they note, ‘There was already great complexity to the concept of mimesis in classical Greece. . . . Plato did not manage to elaborate a unified concept of mimesis but applied and evaluated it variously depending on context’ (Ibid., 25). 3. Ibid., 2–5 (quotation from p. 5). 4. Ibid., 309. 5. Potolsky, Mimesis, 5. This has two implications for our study. First, if the concept of mimesis represents a relatively stable trajectory from Plato and Aristotle to today, and assuming that Johannine mimesis can be situated on this trajectory, we can legitimately extrapolate John’s concept of mimesis to today (see Section 7.3). Second, we can also use insights from modern theories of mimesis to shed light on John’s understanding of the concept since all theories, whether now or then, essentially operate within the framework that Plato and Aristotle delineated.

The Johannine Mimetic Language

35

For example, ‘the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed’ is an analogy that associates a particular aspect of the kingdom of God (its spectacular growth despite its small beginnings) with that of a mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32). Or, to take a Johannine example, the work of the Spirit is likened to the blowing of the wind (3:8). The Spirit does not imitate the wind; rather, the work of the Spirit is explained by means of a comparison to the workings of the wind. In fact, mimesis is a subset or narrower form of analogy in that mimesis refers to the close resemblance between two persons in a specific activity or condition of existence.6 Without claiming to be exhaustive or applicable to mimesis in general, I suggest four criteria or guidelines to distinguish mimesis from analogy in the Johannine writings: 1. Mimesis is intentional as regards the imitator (person B consciously seeks to imitate person A in activity or state X), whereas analogy is often observed or created by an external person (person C notes a correspondence between entities A and B). The intentionality or creation of the analogy does not lie with the comparable entities but with the outsider. To return to the earlier examples, while one could argue that the Spirit imitates the wind in its workings, or that the kingdom of God imitates the mustard seed in its spectacular growth, this would overstretch the dynamics and assume intentionality. It is unlikely that the Spirit intentionally seeks to imitate the wind; rather, the Spirit’s working simply compares to the wind’s in that it is invisible to the human eye, and it is Jesus who intentionally uses this comparison to clarify the Spirit’s operations for his audience. 2. As far as mimesis relates to people (which is the case in the Johannine writings), it needs an action from both persons involved – one person performs an act or displays a state that serves as an example for the other person to emulate. In contrast, with analogy a person may act similarly to other persons with no expectation of being emulated. So, Acts 15:8; Romans 1:13 and 1 Corinthians 15:49 are examples of analogy (person A performs activity X to both person B and person C, that is, person A acts analogously to persons B and C) rather

6. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, imitation is ‘the adoption, whether conscious or not, during a learning process, of the behaviour or attitudes of some specific person or model’, while analogy refers to ‘a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification’. We saw in Section 1.1.5 that Spohn merely sees analogy in John. Based on the Johannine footwashing, Spohn suggests that Christians are invited to use their imaginations creatively and analogically in order to re-enact Jesus’ action faithfully (Go and Do Likewise, 51–56). In all fairness, in the attempt to avoid the opposing dangers of univocal copying and unrelated, equivocal actions, his understanding of ‘analogical imagination’ as creative and faithful re-enactions of Jesus’ actions and ways of living that are congruent with the prototype corresponds closely to my concept of Johannine mimesis.

36

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

than mimesis (person B imitates person A in activity X).7 Specific examples of analogy are found in John 3:14; 5:23; 17:23.8 It must be noted that since both mimesis and analogy are often articulated by the comparative conjunction καθώς in the Johannine writings, the presence of this term is inconclusive and we will need further contextual indicators to distinguish between the two concepts. 3. Mimesis requires a tangible or perceptible act, that is, an act that can be observed by the senses. The imitator must be able to grasp what it is that needs imitation and then produce a corresponding mimetic act that is likewise tangible.9 Analogy can be a correspondence in ideas without any perceptible presence of the two things that are compared (e.g. ‘the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed’). Glancing ahead, the requirement that mimesis involves tangible acts (both the original act and the mimetic act) applies not only to ‘performative mimesis’ (the imitation of a particular action) but also to ‘existential mimesis’ where person B ‘imitates’ person A in a particular state of existence or being (see Sections 2.3 and 4.4). For example, when Jesus commands a state of ‘oneness’ or unity among his followers that is patterned after his unity with the Father (17:11, 22), the disciples could perceive this unity between the Father and Son, both from having heard Jesus’ teaching (e.g. 10:30) and from having seen Jesus’ life and his tangible relationship with his Father (see, e.g. 16:30). 4. Although the fine arts, originally, sought to represent reality in painting, sculpture, dance and so on, in the New Testament, the aim of mimesis in the New Testament is usually ethical or moral transformation – to become like the other person (wholly or in a particular aspect) – whereas the aim of analogy is to explain. For example, Jesus uses various analogies in the Synoptics to explain

7. Acts 15:8, ‘And God [person A], who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them [person B] the Holy Spirit, just as [καθώς] he [person A] did to us [person C]’; Rom 1:13, ‘I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that I have often intended to come to you (but thus far have been prevented), in order that I [person A] may reap some harvest among you [person B] just as [καθώς] I [person A] have among the rest of the Gentiles [person C]’; 1 Cor 15:49, ‘Just as [καθώς] we [person A] have borne the image of the man of dust [entity B], we [person A] will also bear the image of the man of heaven [entity C].’ 8. John 3:14, ‘And just as [καθώς] Moses [person A] lifted up the serpent [entity B] in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man [person C] be lifted up’; John 5:23, ‘so that all [person A] may honour the Son [person B] just as [καθώς] they [person A] honour the Father [person C]’; John 17:23, ‘so that the world [person B] may know that you [person A] have sent me and have loved them [person B] just as [καθώς] you [person A] have loved me [person C]’. Regarding John 3:14, since Moses is the subject of the action while Jesus is the object, the analogy is in the soteriological significance of the two entities lifted up (see further Section 2.2 under category 4). 9. This correlates to the criterion of accessibility in literary mimesis, related to the likelihood that the author of a later text had access to an earlier text for imitation (MacDonald, ‘Imitation’, 408).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

37

to his audiences what the kingdom of God is like, while in John’s Gospel, Jesus encourages his followers to imitate him so that they may become like him (e.g. to become humble (13:14-16), loving (13:34), united (17:11)).10 Mimesis and Reciprocity. Mimesis must also be distinguished from reciprocity. In ancient Mediterranean societies, social relations were characterized by benefaction and reciprocity. The practice of one party bestowing a benefit (e.g. basic goods, services or other favours) and the other party returning a benefit (reciprocity) established and maintained most social relations in first-century Mediterranean cultures. The most common relationship in which reciprocity occurred was the patron–client relationship, an asymmetrical relationship between people who were not social equals.11 Besides the public patron–client relationship, reciprocity also occurred in private or ideal friendship, a symmetrical relationship between social equals.12 Reciprocity differs from mimesis in various ways and I suggest three criteria or principles to distinguish between them: 1. With mimesis, person A upholds an example for person B to follow or emulate (which does not involve an exchange of goods or services), whereas with reciprocity, person A bestows a gift on person B, who returns the favour in the form of other goods or services. While John 13 contains mimesis (Jesus upholds his act of washing the disciples’ feet as an example to follow), instances of reciprocity are found in 3:16 (God’s gift of his Son to the world is to be reciprocated by belief) and 15:13-14 (Jesus’ gift of friendship, shown in laying down his life for his friends, should be reciprocated by keeping his

10. Gebauer and Wulf mention four characteristics of mimesis that overlap with ours: (i) mimesis involves an identification of one person with another; (ii) mimesis includes both an active and a cognitive component; (iii) mimesis denotes a physical action; (iv) mimesis has a performative aspect (Mimesis, 5). I bring out the cognitive aspect of mimesis in Chapter 4. Similarly, Brant notes that mimesis in Greek antiquity is an active, creative and cognitive process with an ethical dimension (‘Mimēsis in Paul’s Thought’, 286–88). 11. Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 117–19; Bruce J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, 3rd ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001), 94–96; Jerome H. Neyrey, The Gospel of John, NCBC (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 21–22; Eric C. Stewart, ‘Social Stratification and Patronage in Ancient Mediterranean Societies’, in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament, ed. Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris (London: Routledge, 2010), 156–58; Martin M. Culy, Echoes of Friendship in the Gospel of John, New Testament Monographs 30 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010), 41. Most scholars subscribe to three types of reciprocity introduced by Marshall Sahlins – general reciprocity (indefinite or open-ended reciprocity as, e.g. in patronage and kinship relations), balanced reciprocity (an exchange of goods and services in equal amounts) and negative reciprocity (e.g. exploitation). 12. Culy, Echoes of Friendship, 42–62; Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospel of John, 119.

38

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

commandments).13 Likewise, the love command in 13:34 denotes mimesis rather than reciprocity because Jesus did not command his disciples to love him in return but to reproduce his love to one another. 2. With mimesis, the movement is unidirectional or linear (person C imitates person B, who imitates person A), whereas with reciprocity, the movement is bidirectional or circular (person A confers a gift to person B who returns a favour to person A, or even from person A to person B to person C, back to person A).14 The Johannine writings show, for example, a linear mimetic chain of love: just as the Father loves the Son, so the Son loves the disciples (15:9), and just as Jesus loved the disciples, so they must love one another (13:34). 3. The aim of Johannine mimesis is moral transformation (person B seeks to become like person A), whereas the aim of reciprocity is to maintain social relations and, in case of patronage, maintain dependency and social hierarchy. In the Johannine writings, mimesis is an ethical concept relating primarily to the transformation of the believer’s behaviour and identity, whereas reciprocity is a social concept relating to the exchange of goods and services between patrons and clients, or between friends. Recently, van der Watt argued that both reciprocity and mimesis occur in 1 John.15 I have three critical remarks. First, van der Watt contends that reciprocity is most often symmetrical (a gift must be returned) and usually occurs in an equal social structure, while mimesis is asymmetrical (instead of a gift an example is followed) and occurs in a hierarchical social structure.16 However, the patron–client relationship, as the most common relationship where reciprocity occurs, is both hierarchical and asymmetrical. Second, van der Watt claims that ‘to walk in the same manner as Jesus’ (1 John 2:6) clearly refers to mimesis, and expressions such as ‘to be righteous like God and Jesus are righteous’ (1 John 2:29; 3:7), ‘to be pure as Jesus is pure’ (1 John 3:3), ‘to die like Jesus died’ (1 John 3:16) and ‘to love like God/Jesus loved’ (1 John 4:9-11, 21) refer mainly to reciprocity, but mimesis is also in view.17 Unlike van der Watt, I do not put reciprocity and mimesis at the same level or seek to clarify whether a phrase is predominantly reciprocal or mimetic. In Chapter 5, I will show that ‘family’ is a major Johannine theological category

13. The Johannine concept of reciprocity is often expressed by John’s so-called ‘indwelling’ or ‘abiding’ language (μένειν ἐν or εἶναι ἐν) (e.g. John 6:56; 10:38; 14:10-11, 20; 15:4-5; 17:21, 23; 1 John 3:24; 4:13, 16). 14. See also Richard Seaford, ‘Introduction’, in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece, ed. Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite and Richard Seaford (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 2 n. 2. 15. Van der Watt, ‘Reciprocity’, 257–76 (see Chapter 1, n. 12 for details). 16. Ibid., 266. 17. Ibid., 267–75. As an aside, van der Watt wrongly identifies the καθώς . . . οὕτως construction in 1 John 2:6 as indicating mimesis; instead, it is the καθώς . . . καί construction (see Section 2.2 category 3, below).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

39

in which mimesis is a dominant form of family behaviour and identity. However, John’s concept of family also has social connotations in that God the Father is the patron, Jesus the Son is the broker and believers as children of God are the clients. Hence, there is a clear expectation of reciprocity from believers towards God. In fact, one could argue that in exchange for God’s gifts of life, light, love, truth and honour (see Section 5.2.1), believers are to respond with the reciprocal actions of obedience, loyalty, love, testimony and so on. In short, all forms of the believers’ behaviour, including mimesis, are reciprocal behaviour. Thus, within John’s theological framework, mimesis is part of the reciprocal behaviour of believers towards God. Third, while van der Watt limits mimesis to action or behaviour, I will show in this chapter that mimesis also relates to identity. Due to his stance, van der Watt overlooks two additional instances of mimesis in 1 John: ‘to be like Jesus’ (1 John 3:2) and ‘to be in the world as he is’ (1 John 4:17). Regarding 1 John 3:2, van der Watt opts for reciprocity rather than mimesis because ‘language of identity . . . rather than action is more characteristic in 3:1-3’.18 While agreeing that 1 John 3:2 contains language of identity rather than action, I contend that 1 John 3:2 does refer to mimesis, specifically existential mimesis (see Section 2.2 under category 8). Contra van der Watt, mimesis is not limited to action but extends to identity.19 To sum up, mimesis has resisted a precise definition throughout history, so I will at times hold my criteria loosely (and explain why) and see them more as a heuristic device to distinguish between different concepts. Consequently, in the next section where I explore the various mimetic expressions, there will be texts where it is debatable whether mimesis is in view. In order to deal with this, I will develop another heuristic device in Section 2.3. When I appeal to the above criteria, I will use, for example, the notation ‘M&A criterion #1’ to refer to the first criterion to distinguish between mimesis and analogy, and ‘M&R criterion #2’ to refer to the second criterion in the section on mimesis and reciprocity. As a way of differentiating the three concepts discussed above, we could say that semantically, mimesis is a subset of analogy, and theologically, mimesis is a subset of reciprocity in the Johannine writings because John uses the social construct of family to consider the relations between God and humans.

2.2 Mimetic Expressions in the Johannine Literature The following examination of the Johannine writings will reveal eight different linguistic expressions that indicate mimesis. In addition, some texts express the concept of mimesis even though no specific linguistic expression is present. I will underline the words that show mimesis, briefly explain their mimetic potential

18. Ibid., 272–73. 19. In his other 2016 essay, however, van der Watt acknowledges that mimesis in 1 John relates to both being and behaviour (‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 416).

40

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

and deal with relevant textual variants where appropriate. The Johannine concept of mimesis will be unpacked in more detail in the chapters that follow. 1. Of the literal terms for mimesis that appear in the New Testament, μιμεῖσθαι (‘to imitate’), μιμητής (‘imitator’) and συμμιμητής (‘fellow imitator’), only the verb μιμεῖσθαι turns up in the Johannine literature – once, in 3 John 11 as a general ethical imperative to imitate good and not evil. 3 John 11 Ἀγαπητέ, μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν. ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν· ὁ κακοποιῶν οὐχ ἑώρακεν τὸν θεόν. Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God. Since this instance of mimesis does not relate to divine mimesis or the believer– Jesus/God mimesis, which are the focus of Chapters 3 and 4, respectively, I will deal with it here. John’s exhortation to Gaius to imitate τὸ ἀγαθόν (‘that which is good’) seems abstract and impersonal, and strictly speaking, does not seem to qualify for our definition of mimesis. However, the latter half of the verse ‘personalizes’ the imitation: ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν (‘the one who does good’) and probably indicates the one who imitates τὸ ἀγαθόν (‘that which is good’). Besides, considering the immediate context (vv. 9-12), ‘that which is evil’ and ‘that which is good’ finds application in the conduct of Diotrephes and Demetrius respectively. As de Boer states, ‘While the command to imitate remains general and the imitation and non-imitation of Demetrius and Diotrephes must be arrived by inference, the whole movement of the thought directs attention to men known to and living among the readers.’20 It seems legitimate, therefore, to extrapolate or extend John’s imperative to Gaius (to imitate what is good in Demetrius) to believers, exhorting them to imitate what is good (in other people’s lives). Despite the single occurrence of a literal term for mimesis in the entire Johannine Corpus, mimesis is not absent from the Johannine text; rather, it is a concept indicated by several other literal terms (see categories 2–8 below). 2. A singular comparative conjunction καθώς denotes mimesis in twelve instances. Καθώς itself does not necessarily indicate mimesis; only a literary context can determine that. For example, although John 5:23 and 17:23 use καθώς, the idea

20. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 85. See also Michaelis, ‘μιμέομαι’, 4:666; I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 92; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Johannine Epistles, trans. R. and I. Fuller (London: Burns & Oates, 1992), 299–300. John Painter also personalizes the verse: ‘While the language of good and evil is new, the saying echoes 1 John 3:10 which contrasts the children of God and the children of the devil’ (1, 2, and 3 John, SP 18 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002), 377). Differently, Raymond E. Brown suggests that this is not a general directive to do good but to practise hospitality as a specific application of the Johannine love command (The Epistles of John, AB 30 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 721).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

41

expressed in these verses is comparison/analogy rather than mimesis because the latter concept requires the imitator to be a different person from the initiator (see also n. 8 above). John 8:28 ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ. I do nothing on my own, but I speak these things just as the Father taught me. Although this text may not indicate mimesis beyond doubt – καθώς could simply be used comparatively to express that Jesus’ teaching is rooted in the Father’s instruction – I contend a good case can be made for the presence of mimesis in Jesus’ teaching when we consider similar texts, such as 3:34; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26; 12:4950; 14:24; 15:15; 17:8. This will need more explanation, which I will do in Section 3.1, dealing more fully with the mimetic idea that Jesus speaks what he hears from the Father and does what he sees in the Father’s presence. One issue we must keep in mind is whether John’s concept of mimesis denotes that Jesus literally reiterates the Father’s words or allows for a creative but truthful retelling. ***** John 10:14b-15a γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ καὶ γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά, καθὼς γινώσκει με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father. Although 10:15a has a καθώς . . . καί construction, which often denotes mimesis (see category 3), the mimetic idea is not that Jesus imitates the Father (‘just as the Father knows me, I also know the Father’) but that the mutual knowing between Jesus and his sheep (10:14b) is patterned after the mutual knowing between the Father and Son (10:15a). A mimesis of reciprocity as it were. On the one hand, this may not be so much an active imitation on the part of believers as a ‘passive’ or ‘existential’ imitation in that the mutual knowing between Jesus and believers seems to be an attribute or state that characterizes their relationship. On the other hand, ‘to know’ indicates cognitive behaviour and hence active imitation. More importantly, one could object to the idea of mimesis here because strictly speaking there is no person B who imitates person A in a tangible act (M&A criteria #3). Instead, the cognitive state between Jesus and the believer is simply analogous to that between the Father and Jesus. However, one could argue that the cognitive state that characterizes the Jesus–believer relationship is modelled on the Father–Jesus relationship.21 In which case, Jesus and the believer ‘imitate’ the cognitive behaviour of the Father and Jesus in that they intimately know each 21. See also Jean Zumstein, who states, ‘Die Beziehung der Reziprozität (καθώς . . . κἀγώ) im Bereich des Kennens, die zwischen Sohn und Vater herrscht, wird zum Modell für die Beziehung zwischen Jesus und den Jüngern’ (Das Johannesevangelium, KEK 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 394–95).

42

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

other. Nonetheless, I suggest that we should view this verse as an occurrence of quasi-mimesis at most. ***** John 14:27 Εἰρήνην ἀφίημι ὑμῖν, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐμὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν· οὐ καθὼς ὁ κόσμος δίδωσιν ἐγὼ δίδωμι ὑμῖν. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. I give to you not as the world gives. The kind of mimesis expressed here – Jesus does not imitate the world – is not a category that we deal with in Chapters 3–4 where we focus on the Son–Father mimesis and the believer–Jesus mimesis, so I elaborate on it now. In the context of his imminent departure, Jesus promises his peace to the disciples (14:27). In fact, Jesus’ promise of peace is contrasted with the peace of the world through a mimetic construction, ‘I give to you not as the world gives.’ While one could object to the idea of mimesis here since the world is not a person, the world in John has personal features (e.g. 1:10; 7:7; 14:17, 31; 15:18-19; 17:21, 25) and functions as a character.22 The only ‘peace’ the world had on offer at the time was the so-called pax Romana, which was a relative peace because it was only effective for those who lived by the imperial rule. First-century Palestine could not be described as a ‘peaceful’ area in the Roman Empire because Roman rule caused oppression, turmoil, conflict, injustice and resistance.23 Jesus, however, does not imitate the world in this respect but offers a radically different peace. Although εἰρήνη can simply mean ‘greetings’ (see 20:19, 21, 26; 2 John 3; 3 John 15), or indicate freedom from anxiety and fear (which is certainly implied in 14:27), it could also refer to ‘wholeness’, ‘welfare’ or ‘salvation’ (cf. the semantic domain of the Hebrew ‫שלוֹם‬ ָׁ ). Besides, Jesus’ promise of peace is not for the world but for his followers as a means of withstanding persecution (16:33). Since peace in Jewish thought was an essential feature of the messianic kingdom (Isa 9:6-7; 52:7; Ezek 37:26), peace is, in Johannine terms, characteristic of the world above rather than the world below. More precisely, peace in the here and now is only available where the world above has penetrated the world below – in God’s family that is in, but not of, the world. Indeed, as 16:33 explains, it is only in Jesus – in relationship with him – that one can experience peace. ***** John 15:10 ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου, καθὼς ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός μου τετήρηκα καὶ μένω αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 22. See Bennema, Encountering Jesus, 75–85. 23. See esp. Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

43

The mimetic idea is that if believers (actively) emulate Jesus’ obedience they will, as a result, experience (i.e. passively emulate) the divine abiding.24 ***** John 15:12 Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐμή, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς. This is my commandment, that you love one another just as I have loved you. This text refers back to 13:34 where the longer καθώς . . . καί construction is used (see under category 3, below). ***** John 17:11b [πάτερ ἅγιε, τήρησον αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου ᾧ δέδωκάς μοι,] ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθ ὼ ς ἡμεῖς. [Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me,] so that they may be one, just as we are [one]. Jesus expresses his desire that believers will imitate the unity that exists between him and the Father (see also 10:30). The mimetic idea is existential in that a particular state of being or existence is imitated among believers. One could argue that the idea here is one of analogy rather than mimesis because no tangible act seems to be in view (M&A criterion #3). However, the disciples will have heard Jesus speak of his unity with the Father and observed the tangible reality of Jesus’ relationship with the Father (e.g. 10:30, 38; 14:10-11, 20; 17:21-23), so it would be a perceptible reality. Similarly, the believers’ unity with the Father and Son is a verifiable (and hence tangible) reality rather than something surreal or ethereal. The clearest reference to this tangible reality is probably 1 John 4:12-13, 15, where John writes, ‘If we love one another, God lives in us. . . . By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. . . . God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God’ (see also 6:56; 14:17, 20, 23; 15:5, 10; 17:21-23; 1 John 1:3; 2:24; 3:24). Although a few manuscripts (e.g. P66) omit the clause ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς, there are no textual uncertainties about the same clause in 17:22b. ***** John 17:14b [ὁ κόσμος ἐμίσησεν αὐτούς, ὅτι] οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. [the world has hated them because] they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world.

24. Rudolf Bultmann merely detects analogy here (The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G.R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Blackwell, 1971), 541).

44

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

This phrase is probably rooted in the teaching of 15:18-19, where Jesus forewarns his disciples about the world’s hate. The mimetic idea is ‘passive’ or existential in that the believers’ origins emulate those of Jesus. Some manuscripts (e.g. P66, D, f13) do not have the clause καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, which Metzger contends is an accidental omission due to homoeoteleuton (i.e. the repetition of ending in words).25 ***** John 17:16 ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. They do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. This is a repetition of 17:14b. The omission of this verse in some manuscripts (e.g. P66) seems to be unintentional since the scribe may have mistaken this verse for 17:14b (again a case of homoeoteleuton). ***** John 17:22b [κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς,] ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν· [The honour that you have given me I have given them,] so that they may be one, just as we are one. This is a repetition of 17:11b. The textual certainty of 17:22b probably offsets the uncertainties regarding 17:11b. ***** 1 John 3:3 καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν. And all who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure. The (moral) purity of God or Jesus is what believers are to emulate. A recurring difficulty in 1 John is whether God or Jesus is in view. It is difficult to decide whether the referent of αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος is God or Jesus. While God is most probably the referent throughout 2:29–3:2a, 3:2b seems to refer to Jesus because he is often the subject of the passive form of φανεροῦν in this letter (1:2; 2:28; 3:5, 8). In which case, Jesus remains the most likely referent in 3:3.26 Besides, Jesus is also linked to the verbs

25. Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 213. 26. Virtually all commentators contend that, barring 5:16, all occurrences of ἐκεῖνος in 1 John (2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; 4:17) refer to Jesus. See the respective verses in the commentaries by Johannes Beutler, Raymond Brown, Rudolf Bultmann, Martin Culy, Leslie Houlden, Hans-Josef Klauck, Judith Lieu, William Loader, Howard Marshall, John Painter, Rudolf Schnackenburg, Udo Schnelle, Stephen Smalley, Georg Strecker, Klaus Wengst (see the bibliography for details).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

45

ἁγιάζειν (John 17:19) and καθαρίζειν (1 John 1:7, 9), and their respective cognates ἅγιος (John 6:69) and καθαρός (John 13:10-11; 15:3). These terms are semantically related to the verb ἁγνίζειν and its cognate ἁγνός, which have overlapping ideas of moral purification or cleansing. Although the mimetic idea may seem weak – it does not say that believers should purify themselves just as Jesus purified himself – this can be explained in light of Jesus having no need to do so because he is pure. ***** 1 John 3:7 ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν· The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. Again, it is not clear whether the referent of ἐκεῖνος is God or Jesus. On the one hand, a similar phrase in 2:29 (δίκαιός ἐστιν) could refer to God since the last part of the verse, ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, undoubtedly refers to God. On the other hand, since Jesus is the subject in 3:4-6 (perhaps even in 3:2b-3), he is probably also in view in 3:7 (cf. 1 John 2:1).27 In which case, Jesus is the example to emulate with regard to doing/being what God requires. ***** 1 John 3:12 οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ· [We must be] not as Cain who was from the evil one and murdered his brother. To reinforce the command to love one another (1 John 3:11), John urges his readers not to imitate Cain in his murderous behaviour (1 John 3:12) because murder fuelled by hate is incompatible with love for one another (1 John 3:15; 4:20).28 While Cain imitated the devil (cf. 1 John 3:8, 12 and John 8:44), believers are called to imitate Jesus (1 John 3:3, 7). 3. The comparative conjunction καθώς in the protasis with the correlative καί in the apodosis to form a καθώς . . . καί construction occurs nine times to denote mimesis.29 John 6:57 καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι᾽ ἐμέ.30 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, (so) the one who eats me will also live because of me.

27. See all commentators mentioned in n. 26. 28. Although 1 John 3:11 uses ἀγγελία rather than ἐντολή, the verse clearly refers back to John 13:34. 29. This includes the καθώς . . . κἀγώ construction since κἀγώ is, of course, the contraction of καί and ἐγώ. 30. I would argue that the third καί functions adverbially (‘also’) and the second καί is redundant. In the καθώς . . . καί construction, the καί is usually followed by a personal pronoun.

46

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

This is the first occurrence of the believer–Jesus mimesis in the Johannine writings. Although the believer is urged to act, namely to ‘eat’ or partake of Jesus, that is to come to Jesus and believe in him (6:35), this is not a mimetic activity. The mimetic concept lies in the grounds for life: just as Jesus lives because of the Father, so the believer lives because of Jesus. The διὰ τὸν πατέρα is explained in 5:26, where Jesus declares that the Father has granted him to have life in himself. Similarly, the believer lives because Jesus has granted him life (6:35, 53).31 On the one hand, since ζῆν is an active verb the idea presented in this verse can be identified as performative mimesis. On the other hand, since a share in the divine life is granted to the believer by Jesus rather than the believer taking hold of it, the idea is not so much that of active mimesis but of quasi-existential mimesis or ‘imitation’ of existence. In other words, the believers’ dependence on Jesus for their life or existence is patterned on but not identical to Jesus’ ‘dependence’ on the Father for his life.32 One could object to the presence of mimesis here because strictly speaking Jesus does not show a tangible act or state of ‘life’ that the believer can observe and imitate (M&A criterion #3); instead, the believer’s life may simply be analogous to that of Jesus. Yet, the believer’s life granted on account of Jesus ‘imitates’ the reality of Jesus’ life on account of the Father, albeit this is not an active imitation on part of the believer. All things considered, I suggest that this verse indicates a weak instance of mimesis of a particular state of existence. ***** John 13:15 ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε. For I have set you an example, so that just as I have done to you, you also should do. This is arguably the clearest instance of the believer–Jesus mimesis in the Johannine literature and occurs, appropriately, at the beginning of the farewell discourses, where Jesus prepares his disciples for the time when he will return to his Father.33 This is a complex verse and scholarship is divided on whether the mimesis refers to

31. Although the phrase ‘to have life in himself ’ (ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ) is reserved for the Father and Son (5:26), it is also extended to believers (6:53), but this is qualified by the prerequisite of accepting Jesus. The most frequent phrase in relation to believers is ‘to have (eternal) life’, which means ‘to have a share in the divine life of the Father and Son’. 32. Similarly, Craig S. Keener states that ‘in 6:57, Jesus’ dependence on the Father for life (5:26) becomes the model for the disciples’ dependence on him’ (The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody: Hendrickson 2003), 691). 33. Contra Bultmann, who states that ‘Jesus is not the ὑπόδειγμα for an Imitatio’ (Gospel of John, 476), although he probably means that the footwashing is not meant to be replicated literally.

The Johannine Mimetic Language

47

a literal washing of feet or to the general idea of loving, humble service. In Section 4.2, I will provide a detailed discussion.34 ***** John 13:34 Ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους. I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also must love one another. The so-called ‘love’ command represents the most recognized (for some, even only) Johannine ethic. Jesus introduces the love command in 13:34a and then explains it in 13:34b using a mimetic καθώς . . . καί construction. Given the centrality of the love command in Johannine theology or ethics, we will return to this topic in Section 4.3. ***** John 15:9 Καθὼς ἠγάπησέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς ἠγάπησα· μείνατε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ τῇ ἐμῇ. Just as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you; abide in my love. This time, the imperative to remain in Jesus’ love is preceded by an explanation, using a mimetic καθώς . . . καί construction. This is an example of divine mimesis, where Jesus’ love for the disciples is patterned after the Father’s love for him. I will discuss this text in more detail in Section 4.3. ***** John 17:18 καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον· Just as you have sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. This verse expresses a double mimesis. First, Jesus imitates the Father in sending others into the world. The second mimetic idea presented here is an implied ‘passive’ or existential mimesis in that it describes the disciples’ state of being sent into the world by Jesus in imitation of Jesus’ state of being sent into the world by the Father.35 Although 17:18b is omitted from P66, this reading is not

34. The noun ὑπόδειγμα (‘example, model, pattern’) occurs only once in the Johannine literature, in John 13:15, but the term itself does not carry the sense of imitation; it simply denotes the example for imitation. The related term τύπος, which can denote a visual form to be copied or a model of behaviour to be imitated (esp. in Paul), is used only in John 20:25 to denote a visible impression – a scar. 35. Francois Tolmie, however, views this correspondence between Jesus’ mission and that of the disciples only in terms of analogy (Jesus’ Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective, BibInt 12 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 91 n. 52).

48

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

completely certain. Besides, there is no uncertainty about the mimetic καθώς . . . καί construction in the parallel verse 20:21. ***** John 17:21 καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν, Just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, The mimetic idea here is that the believers’ indwelling of the Father and Son is patterned on the mutual indwelling of the Father and Son. Again, this is an example of ‘existential’ mimesis in that it describes a particular state of being or existence. I will provide a detailed discussion of John’s ‘in’ (ἐν) language in Section 4.5. ***** John 20:21 καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς. Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you. This is a repetition of 17:18, thus presenting a double mimesis – Jesus actively imitates the Father in sending the disciples, and the disciples ‘passively’ or existentially imitate Jesus in their being sent into the world. ***** 1 John 2:6 ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφεί λει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν. just as he walked, the one who claims to abide in him must also walk [similarly]. I contend that this is a mimetic καθώς . . . καί construction rather than a καθώς . . . οὕτως construction.36 Besides, it is uncertain whether οὕτως belongs to the original reading.37 Καί here cannot be a coordinate conjunction (‘and’) but must function as an adverb (‘also’). This makes the οὕτως superfluous since the comparison is already established by the καθώς . . . καί construction.38 The referent of ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν is either Jesus (cf. John 15:4-10; 1 John 2:28) or God (cf. 1 John 1:6). Most likely, the referent of ἐκεῖνος here is Jesus.39 Also, since περιπατεῖν (‘to walk’) is shorthand for ‘way of life’ or behaviour, this most likely refers to Jesus’ life on earth that had been observed – and hence could be imitated. The presence of ὀφείλειν

36. Contra van der Watt, ‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 424. 37. The external evidence for and against the presence of οὕτως is evenly divided (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 639). 38. Most English versions (e.g. ESV, NRSV, NASB) translate neither καί nor οὕτως and just rely on the translation of καθώς to establish the idea of mimesis. 39. See all commentators mentioned in n. 26.

The Johannine Mimetic Language

49

creates a mimetic imperative, where the believer is commanded to reflect on and imitate Jesus’ way of life.40 ***** 1 John 4:17b καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ. just as he is, we also are in this world. This verse has various interpretative difficulties. Contra the majority of scholars (see n. 26), I tentatively suggest that the referent of ἐκεῖνος is God rather than Jesus. On the one hand, the demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος in 1 John seems to refer at least five out of seven times to Jesus (1 John 2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; in 1 John 5:16, the referent is sin). On the other hand, the focus throughout 1 John 4:7-21 is God rather than Jesus. Besides, if there is a mimetic idea in this text, the phrase ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ must be matched by a corresponding spatial location with reference to God – heaven. In fact, the mimetic idea probably revolves around love (cf. ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν in 1 John 4:8, 16). I thus paraphrase this verse as follows: ‘Just as God in heaven is characterized by love, we in this world also are to be characterized by love’ (see further Sections 4.3.4 and 4.4). If, however, the referent is Jesus, the idea could be that (i) believers on earth are now already like Jesus in heaven and need not fear the final day (cf. 1 John 3:2);41 (ii) just as Jesus is in the Father’s love, so are believers in his love;42 or (iii) just as Jesus has experienced tribulation in this world but has overcome the world (John 16:33), so believers can have the same experience.43 Option (i) is unlikely because, according to 1 John 3:2, believers on earth are not yet like Jesus in heaven; this is a drawn-out process culminating at Jesus’ return. Option (iii) is also unlikely because a past reference to Jesus in the world is in tension with the present ἐστιν. Hence, option (ii) is the most likely interpretation were Jesus the referent. 4. The comparative conjunction καθώς in the protasis with the correlative οὕτως in the apodosis to form a καθώς . . . οὕτως construction denotes mimesis two out of five times. 40. While historically the disciples would have observed Jesus’ life for themselves, later believers have access to Jesus’ earthly life through John’s written accounts. Cf. Jesus’ declaration ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς in John 14:6, where ὁδός is probably also shorthand for ‘way of life’. 41. Brown, Epistles of John, 529; J. Leslie Houlden, A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles, BNTC, rev. ed. (London: A&C Black, 1994), 119. 42. Rudolf Bultmann, The Johannine Epistles, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1973), 72–73; Stephen S. Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, WBC 51, rev. ed. (Dallas: Nelson, 2007), 247 (Smalley also asserts that ‘an injunction to imitate Jesus is present but not articulated’). See also Hans-Josef Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, EKKNT 23.1 (Zürich: Benziger/NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1991), 270; Udo Schnelle, Die Johannesbriefe, ThHK 17 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010), 157; Klaus Wengst, Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes, ÖTK 16 (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Berlagshaus Mohn, 1978), 193. 43. Johannes Beutler, Die Johannesbriefe, RNT (Regensburg; Pustet, 2000), 114.

50

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

John 3:14 Καὶ καθὼς Μωϋσῆς ὕψωσεν τὸν ὄφιν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, οὕτως ὑψωθῆναι δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, Initially, it seems that the καθώς . . . οὕτως construction in 3:14 denotes mimesis but a few factors make me decide against it. First, there is a switch from the active form ‘to lift up’ in 3:14a to the passive ‘to be lifted up’ in 3:14b, which means that the correspondence must be between Jesus and the serpent, not Moses. Second, the bronze serpent made by Moses was inanimate and hence does not qualify for our definition of mimesis. Hence, the analogy is between the bronze serpent being lifted up on a pole and Jesus being lifted up on the cross to provide deliverance/ salvation for the Israelites in the wilderness and people in general. I conclude that John 3:14 does not constitute the idea of mimesis but is an example of typology. In this case, the type (serpent) foreshadows or points to the antitype (Jesus), indicating a forward-looking movement (albeit created retrospectively), whereas mimesis shows an opposite movement (the imitator emulating an example shown earlier). ***** John 12:50 [ἃ οὖν ἐγὼ λαλῶ,] καθὼς εἴρηκέν μοι ὁ πατήρ, οὕτως λαλῶ. [What I speak, therefore,] just as the Father has spoken to me, so I speak. The mimetic idea in this verse is that Jesus’ teaching is rooted in God’s instruction – Jesus’ words are the very words of God (cf. 3:34; 8:28). This mimesis of speech is a specific instance of the general Son–Father mimesis in John 5:19 (see category 8, below), which we will examine in detail in Section 3.1. ***** John 14:31 ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι ἀγαπῶ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ καθὼς ἐνετείλατό μοι ὁ πατήρ, οὕτως ποιῶ. but so that the world may know that I love the Father, just as the Father has commanded me, so I do. The καθώς . . . οὕτως construction here does not constitute mimesis because Jesus does not do what the Father does but what the Father tells him to do. Jesus is obeying the Father, rather than imitating him. ***** John 15:4 καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε. Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself unless it abides in the vine, so you cannot either unless you abide in me.

The Johannine Mimetic Language

51

It could be argued that a branch is not a person, so this verse presents an analogy rather than mimesis. However, a branch is organic or animate, and is even given personal features in this verse – it speaks of the branch’s activity of abiding in the vine – so I suggest it does meet the criteria of our definition of mimesis. The mimetic idea is that Jesus exhorts his disciples to ‘imitate’ a branch. Just as a branch that remains grafted in the vine will naturally be fruitful, so will the believer when he remains in a relationship with Jesus.44 Nevertheless, I regard this verse as an instance of tentative mimesis. ***** 1 John 2:6 ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφεί λει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν. just as he walked, the one who claims to abide in him must also walk [similarly]. I stated earlier that this is a mimetic καθώς . . . καί construction rather than a καθώς . . . οὕτως construction (see category 3, above). 5. The οὕτως . . . καί construction denotes mimesis in one instance. 1 John 4:11 Ἀγαπητοί, εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν. Dear friends, since God loved us in this manner, we also must love one another. The conjunction καί here does not function as a coordination marker (‘and’) but as an adverb (‘also’). This is the first of two occurrences where the believer is urged to imitate God himself (the other occurrence is in 1 John 4:17; see category 3, above). The believers’ love for each other is rooted in and patterned after God’s love for them (cf. 13:34). 6. A singular adverbial καί can also denote mimesis, arguably seven times in the Johannine writings. John 12:26 ἐὰν ἐμοί τις διακονῇ, ἐμοὶ ἀκολουθείτω, καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται· Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there my servant will also be. Together with 14:3 and 17:24 (see below), 12:26 presents the mimetic concept ‘to be where Jesus is’. This refers to existential mimesis or mimesis of being. However, the reader will have questions about what spatial location ὅπου refers to because

44. The first part of the verse, μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν (‘remain in me, and I remain in you’), is not an occurrence of mimesis but denotes mutual abiding (reciprocity), almost in a conditional sense (if you remain in me, then I will remain in you).

52

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Jesus does not clarify it – only 14:2-3 may shed some light on this (see below). I will explore in Section 4.1 whether ἀκολουθεῖν (‘to follow’) also indicates mimesis. ***** John 13:14 εἰ οὖν ἐγὼ ἔνιψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος, καὶ ὑμεῖς ὀφείλετε ἀλλήλων νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας· So, if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also must wash one another’s feet. The combination of the adverbial use of the second καί, the imperatival force of ὀφείλειν and the repetition of the verb νίπτειν create the mimetic imperative for believers to wash each other’s feet in imitation of Jesus. A similar mimetic imperative occurs in 13:15 by means of a καθώς . . . καί construction (see category 3, above). ***** John 14:3 ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε. so that where I am, you also may be. While a similar mimetic idea is expressed in 12:26 and 17:24, 14:2-3 could reveal the spatial location ὅπου refers to. In Section 4.4.1, I will discuss the two main options – the believer’s eternal residence in heaven or God’s family on earth. ***** John 14:12 Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει, I assure you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do, The mimetic idea is that the believer continues Jesus’ miraculous works by imitating him.45 One could argue, however, that the idea is simply for the believer to participate in Jesus’ works. Equally, it could be argued that having observed Jesus’ works earlier, the disciples are now told to imitate them. We could also consider 4:34-38, where Jesus extends an implicit invitation to his disciples to join the work he is involved in, which is the Father’s work. There is thus an implied mimetic chain. Jesus carries out the Father’s work, and the disciples carry out Jesus’ work. More specifically, Jesus carries out the Father’s work by imitating him because he only speaks and does what he hears and sees from the Father. Since the disciples have also heard Jesus’ words and seen his miraculous works, it is natural to expect that they carry out Jesus’ work (which is the Father’s work) by means of mimesis. ***** 45. Cf. Fernando F. Segovia’s use of the term ‘duplication’ here (The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 90). Brant also notes the idea of imitation, although without explanation (John, 214).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

53

John 14:19 ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε. because I live, you also will live. Although it seems that this clause simply states the reason for the believer’s life, there is a mimetic dimension in that the believer’s life is patterned after Jesus’ life – just as Jesus lives, so the believer lives (in the sense that the believer has a share in the divine life). While Jesus does not set an example that the believer can observe and imitate (and hence fails M&A criterion #2 and M&R criterion #1), one could argue that the believer’s life is modelled on Jesus’ life. I thus view this occurrence as quasi-mimesis (see also the discussion on 6:57 above, under category 3). ***** John 17:24 Πάτερ, ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ. Father, regarding those whom you have given me, I desire that where I am, they also may be with me. See the comments on 12:26 and 14:3, above. ***** 1 John 3:16 ἐν τούτῳ ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us; likewise, we must lay down our lives for one another. John extends Jesus’ saying in John 15:13 by creating a mimetic imperative: just as Jesus laid down his life for his followers’ sake, so believers must lay down their lives for each other’s sake. While καί could be a coordinate conjunction (‘and’), more likely it functions here as an adverbial καί (‘likewise, also’), thus strengthening the general idea of mimesis in this verse. 7. The comparative conjunction ὥσπερ occurs only twice in the Johannine literature and denotes mimesis as part of the expression ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καί. John 5:21 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. ***** John 5:26 ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. For just as the Father has life in himself, so also he has granted the Son to have life in himself;

54

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

While 5:19 speaks of the Son–Father mimesis in a broad, general sense – the Son imitates the Father in everything (see category 8), 5:21 and 5:26 express a specific mimetic activity, namely the Son’s prerogative to be a source of life in imitation of the Father (cf. 1:4). I will examine the importance of John 5 for the Son–Father mimesis in Section 3.1. 8. The adverb ὁμοίως (‘similarly, likewise’) denotes imitation in one instance and the adjective ὅμοιος (‘similar’) arguably also once. John 5:19 Ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does these things likewise.’ This verse is foundational for the Son–Father mimesis (see further Section 3.1). The mimesis is unspecified – the Son imitates whatever he sees the Father doing. The Son can do so because the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he does (ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ (5:20; cf. 3:35)). ***** 1 John 3:2 οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα ὅτι ὀψόμεθα αὐτὸν καθώς ἐστιν. We know that when he is revealed, we will be like him because we will see him as he is. The subject of φανερωθῇ in 3:2b is probably Jesus because he often is the subject of the passive form of φανεροῦν in this letter (1:2; 2:28; 3:5, 8). Although the essence of the verse is clear – believers will be transformed at the Parousia – the difficult issue is whether this transformation is one of resemblance (believers will seem like Jesus) or contains a mimetic element (believers will be like Jesus). In light of the presence of mimesis in the immediate context (3:3 and 3:7 (see category 2, above)), mimesis could be in view here too. 9. Sometimes the concept of imitation is present or implied even when no comparative term or phrase is used. John 8:26 κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον. and I speak to the world the things which I have heard from him. It could be argued that the idea here is not so much of mimesis as the passing on of information – the Father instructs Jesus and Jesus then tells the world. However, in 8:28 and 12:50 the mimetic idea is clearer (see categories 2 and 4, respectively). Whether Jesus’ words are a literal replication of the Father’s words or a creative

The Johannine Mimetic Language

55

retelling is another issue, but both options would come under the concept of mimesis (see further Section 3.1). ***** John 8:38-39 ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε. ἀπεκρίθησαν καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν Ἀβραάμ ἐστιν. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς· εἰ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε· ‘I speak what I have seen in the Father’s presence; therefore, you should also do what you have heard from the Father.’ They answered him, ‘Our father is Abraham.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham.’ Jesus’ claim that he speaks of what he has seen in the Father’s presence (8:38a) seems to echo the mimetic pattern revealed in 5:19-20. If this mimetic idea lies behind Jesus’ claim in 8:38a, then Jesus’ exhortation in 8:38b, ‘therefore, you should also do what you have heard from the Father’, echoes the concept of mimesis. The presence of the conjunction οὖν indicates that καί here functions as an adverb (‘also’) rather than a marker of coordinate relations (‘and’). The textual variant ὑμῶν after τοῦ πατρός is most probably a scribal refinement to show a contrast between God and the devil, but this contrast is only introduced in 8:41.46 Thus, just as Jesus imitates the Father, so ‘the Jews’ should imitate the Father. To phrase it more accurately, ‘the Jews’ should imitate Jesus in imitating the Father. Then, in 8:39, Jesus points out that if Abraham were their father, they would do his works, that is, they would imitate Abraham’s behaviour. However, instead of the desired mimesis of Jesus and Abraham, Jesus reveals that they actually imitate the devil (8:41-44). ***** John 14:16 κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν, ἵνα μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ᾖ, And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you forever. The adjective ἄλλος denotes ‘another, of the same kind’. Hence, Jesus was the first παράκλητος and the Spirit will take over the function of παράκλητος after Jesus’ departure. In other words, the Spirit will imitate Jesus in his role as παράκλητος (see further Section 3.2). ***** John 15:15 πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν. I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father (cf. 8:28 above). 46. Metzger, Textual Commentary, 193.

56

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Considering texts such as 8:28 and 12:50 where mimesis is more explicit, I contend that this verse contains the implied mimetic idea that Jesus told the disciples the things that the Father told him. ***** John 16:13-15 13 ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ· οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει καὶ τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. 14 ἐκεῖνος ἐμὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λήμψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. 15 πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν· διὰ τοῦτο εἶπον ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, because he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. While there is no specific linguistic expression to show the mimetic relationship between Jesus and the Spirit, the idea that the Spirit imitates Jesus’ teaching role is clear. The nature of the Spirit’s mimesis of Jesus’ didactic function probably lies between two extremes: on the one hand, the Spirit does not provide new teaching independent of Jesus’ historical teaching; on the other hand, the Spirit probably does not simply reiterate the ipsissima verba Jesu. More likely, the Spirit accurately recontextualizes or reinterprets Jesus’ original words for any given context (see further Section 3.2). ***** John 17:22a κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς, ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν· The honour that you have given me I have [also?] given them, so that they may be one, just as we are one, This verse has two possible occurrences of mimesis. While the mimesis in 17:22b is the more obvious (see category 2), 17:22a may also have a mimetic element, in that just as the Father has honoured the Son, so the Son has honoured the disciples (especially if we take the opening καί as adverbial rather than connective). Nevertheless, one could also argue that the idea is simply a passing on of honour, so I consider 17:22a an example of tentative or weak mimesis. In the above survey of the Johannine literature, I have excluded John 3:14; 14:31 and 1 John 2:6 from the list of mimetic occurrences under category 4, even though they contain linguistic expressions that potentially indicate mimesis. In addition, I contend that the following texts also do not constitute mimesis: In John 3:8, the work of the Spirit is likened to the blowing of the wind through the use of the adverb οὕτως. The Spirit does not imitate the wind; rather, the work of the Spirit is explained by a comparison to wind – the comparison is ●

The Johannine Mimetic Language

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

57

analogous. Besides, wind is inanimate and does not meet the criteria of our definition for mimesis. In John 5:23, the phrase ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα (‘so that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father’) does not constitute mimesis because πάντες is the subject of honouring both the Son and the Father, and hence πάντες do not imitate anyone but act analogously. In John 5:30, it is tempting to see mimesis in the phrase καθὼς ἀκούω κρίνω (‘just as I hear, I judge’) because (i) Jesus’ other divine prerogative (‘to give life’) in 5:21 is rooted in mimesis (see category 7), and (ii) I argued that a similar phrase in 8:26 (‘I speak what I have heard’) denotes mimesis. Yet, while 8:26 parallels 8:28 and 12:50, where a clearer mimetic construction is present, nowhere in the Johannine literature are κρίσις or κρίνειν related to an explicit mimetic construction (5:22, 24 merely state that the Father has given the Son the divine prerogative to judge). John 6:56 refers to mutual indwelling (the believer remaining in Jesus and vice versa) rather than the believer imitating Jesus’ remaining. In John 15:18, 20, Jesus states that the world will hate the disciples because it hated Jesus first. This is not an example of mimesis because the world is not imitating someone else; rather, the world replicates or transfers its own treatment of Jesus to the disciples because they belong to him. In other words, the world acts analogously to the disciples as it does to Jesus. In John 15:26-27, the testimonies of the Spirit and the disciples are coordinated in that the Spirit channels his testimony through that of the disciples.47 Hence, the disciples do not imitate the Spirit. Although John 17:19b contains an adverbial καί (‘also’), there is no mimetic concept because Jesus sanctifies himself, but the disciples’ sanctification occurs to them (ἡγιασμένοι is a passive participle), whether by Jesus or God (cf. 17:17). In John 17:23, the phrase ἵνα γινώσκῃ ὁ κόσμος ὅτι σύ . . . ἠγάπησας αὐτοὺς καθὼς ἐμὲ ἠγάπησας (‘so that the world may know that you . . . have loved them just as you have loved me’) does not express mimesis but simply states that God’s love for the world is analogous to his love for Jesus. Although the term καθώς in relation to the love command in 1 John 3:23 clearly harks back to John 13:34, there is no explicit mimetic construction and hence this text is excluded. In 2 John 4, the presence of καθώς does not constitute mimesis because the believers’ ‘walking in the truth’ is presented as obedience to God’s command rather than imitating Jesus’ way of life as we have it in 1 John 2:6.

47. See also Cornelis Bennema, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel, WUNT II/148 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002), 235–36.

58

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

2.3 Statistical Analysis of the Data After this extensive survey of the mimetic language in the Johannine literature, we are in a position to aggregate and analyse the data in order to make various inferences. I have collected all the mimetic occurrences in the Johannine literature in Appendix 1, indicating who imitates whom, the type and strength of mimesis, whether it is a mimetic imperative, and the specific mimetic aspect. We can also quantify, visualize and further analyse our findings in relation to the various forms of mimesis in the main sections of the Johannine literature in several tables and diagrams. When we consider the persons who are involved in the various mimetic occurrences, we note the following pattern across the Johannine literature. 48,49,50

John John 1–4 5–12 Son–Father mimesis48 Believer–Jesus/ God mimesis49 Other kinds of mimesis50

John 13–17

John 18–21 1 John 2 John 3 John Total

6

4

1

3

15

1

1

4

7 1

1

%

11

25

26

59

7

16

Mimetic Occurrences in the Johannine Corpus

25

4

20

15 15

10

1 3

1

5 7

6 4

0 Jn 1-4

1 1

Jn 5-12 Jn 13-17 Jn 18-21

Son-Father mimesis

1

1 Jn

disciple-Jesus/God mimesis

2 Jn

3 Jn

other mimetic forms

48. See John 5:19, 21, 26; 8:26, 28; 12:50; 15:9, 15; 17:18, 22a; 20:21. 49. This can refer to the believer’s mimesis of either Jesus or God or both. See John 6:57; 10:14-15; 12:26; 13:14, 15, 34; 14:3, 12, 19; 15:10, 12; 17:11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22b, 24; 20:21; 1 John 2:6; 3:2, 3, 7, 16; 4:11, 17. 50. See John 8:38-39; 14:16, 27; 15:4; 16:13-15; 1 John 3:12; 3 John 11.

The Johannine Mimetic Language

59

When we consider the two types of mimesis – performative and existential mimesis (see also below) – the spread for each type is as follows (see Appendix 1 for the specific references): John John John John 1–4 5–12 13–17 18–21 1 John 2 John 3 John Total Performative mimesis Existential mimesis

7

14

1

5

3

9

1

3

1

%

28

64

16

36

We noted that sometimes it is straightforward to identify mimesis and at other times the mimesis is more implied or tentative. However, instead of an either/ or scenario where we decide whether each passage contains mimesis or not, I suggest that we use a sliding scale to assess the mimetic strength of a passage. Hence, the Johannine writings presents us with a spectrum of mimetic strength, where passages that are candidates for mimesis, when taken together, provide a range of mimetic strength. In other words, I suggest that we operate with a mimetic continuum that indicates the relative mimetic strength of the various passages in the Johannine literature. The instrument of mimetic strength and its indicators ‘strong’, ‘medium’ and ‘weak’ are used heuristically to convey our certainty of the presence of mimesis in a particular Johannine passage. Returning to the passages we just considered, I suggest that we can gauge their mimetic strength as follows:

Reference

Mimetic Expression

Type of Mimesis

Mimetic Strength

John 5:19

ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποι εῖ ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ…ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι᾽ ἐμέ κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε . . . εἰ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ καὶ γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά, καθὼς γινώσκει με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται καθὼς εἴρηκέν μοι ὁ πατήρ, οὕτως λαλῶ

performative

strong

performative

strong

quasi-existential

strong

quasi-existential

weak

performative

weak

performative performative (tentatively)

medium weak

quasi-existential

weak

existential performative

strong strong

John 5:21 John 5:26 John 6:57

John 8:26 John 8:28 John 8:38-39

John 10:14-15

John 12:26 John 12:50

(Continued )

60

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Reference

Mimetic Expression

Type of Mimesis

Mimetic Strength

John 13:14

εἰ οὖν ἐγὼ ἔνιψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας . . . καὶ ὑμεῖς ὀφείλετε ἀλλήλων νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσ ει ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε οὐ καθὼς ὁ κόσμος δίδωσιν ἐγὼ δίδωμι ὑμῖν καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε καθὼς ἠγάπηςέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς ἠγάπησα ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου, καθὼς ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός μου τετήρηκα καὶ μένω αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῇ ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει . . . ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν Πάτερ, ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν; καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι

performative

medium

performative performative

strong strong

existential performative

strong medium

performative quasi-existential performative performative (tentatively)

weak weak medium weak

performative

strong

performative

strong

performative performative

strong medium

performative

medium

existential existential

strong strong

existential

strong

performative and existential existential

strong strong strong

performative existential existential

weak strong strong

performative and existential performative

strong strong strong

existential performative

medium medium

existential (with a performative aspect) performative

strong strong

performative

medium

John 13:15 John 13:34 John 14:3 John 14:12 John 14:16 John 14:19 John 14:27 John 15:4

John 15:9 John 15:10

John 15:12 John 15:15 John 16:13-15

John 17:11 John 17:14 John 17:16 John 17:18 John 17:21 John 17:22a John 17:22b John 17:24 John 20:21 1 John 2:6 1 John 3:2 1 John 3:3 1 John 3:7 1 John 3:12 1 John 3:16

The Johannine Mimetic Language

61

Reference

Mimetic Expression

Type of Mimesis

Mimetic Strength

1 John 4:11

εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν

performative

strong

existential

strong

performative

strong

1 John 4:17 3 John 11

When we aggregate these results, a continuum of mimesis with varying degrees of mimetic strength will look as follows. Continuum of Mimesis

27

8

9

weak

medium

strong

increasing mimetic strength

I sum up the most significant findings and inferences from our analysis: 1. The Johannine literature yields approximately forty-four examples of mimesis. Even if one disputes some of the findings, sufficient mimetic occurrences remain to speak of it as being a prominent Johannine concept. 2. It is important is to recognize that mimesis is not equally strong or clear in every candidate passage. Hence, the heuristic device of a continuum of degree of mimesis aids us in gauging the mimetic strength of each passage. In most cases (twenty-seven out of forty-four mimetic occurrences, which is 61%), the mimetic strength is strong, implying that these passages clearly indicate mimesis. 3. John uses a broad semantic domain to indicate mimesis – besides the literal term μιμεῖσθαι, mimesis is conveyed by seven other linguistic expressions. 4. The comparative conjunction καθώς, either on its own or in the protasis with either the correlative καί or οὕτως in the apodosis, communicates the Johannine concept of mimesis most often: twenty-three out of forty-four occurrences, which is 52%.51

51. See Section 2.2: twelve occurrences in category 2 (καθώς); nine occurrences in category 3 (καθώς . . . καί); two occurrences in category 4 (καθώς . . . οὕτως). See also Wolfgang Schenk, Kommentiertes Lexikon zum Vierten Evangelium: Seine Textkonstituenten in ihren Syntagmen und Wortfeldern (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993), 222–23. Although

62

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

5. The vast majority of mimetic occurrences in the Johannine Corpus fall into two categories: (i) the believer–Jesus/God mimesis (59% of all occurrences); (ii) the Son–Father mimesis (25% of all occurrences). The believer–Jesus/God mimesis can refer to the believer’s imitation of Jesus, God or both, of which the believer– Jesus mimesis is most prevalent.52 6. Most examples of mimesis occur in paraenetic or didactic material – the farewell discourses in John 13–17 where Jesus teaches on aspects of discipleship, and in 1 John where John urges believers to behave according to the truth. Mimesis thus seems an important feature or instrument of moral instruction in the teaching of both Jesus and John. This is not surprising because mimesis is part of ethics. 7. There are two types of Johannine mimesis. Most often, mimesis involves the imitation of an action (64% of all occurrences). This ‘performative’ mimesis can be defined as ‘person B imitates person A in action X’. The second type of mimesis is less common (36% of all occurrences), and can be called ‘existential’ mimesis, that is, ‘person B imitates person A in a particular state of being’ (e.g. ‘to be one just as the Father and Son are one’ or ‘to have (a share in the divine) life’). 8. The Johannine writings contain a large number of mimetic imperatives: ten out of forty-four mimetic occurrences, that is 23%.53 Looking specifically at the believer–Jesus/God mimesis, we observe that seven out of twenty-six occurrences or 27% are mimetic imperatives (going up to 35% if we include the believer mimesis in 1 John 3:12 and 3 John 11).54 The implication is that mimesis is not optional but a crucial aspect of the believer’s relationship with the Father and Son.

Weyer-Menkhoff notes the importance of καθώς in the Gospel of John, he has not recognized its full potential (Ethik des Johannesevangeliums, 241–48). For him, καθώς ‘merely’ denotes analogy, whereas I have shown that καθώς often expresses mimesis (a narrower form of analogy) in the Johannine literature. While Brown discusses at length the many uses of καθώς in the Johannine writings, he merely explains them as expressing comparison rather than mimesis (Epistles of John, 262–63). Bultmann also frequently denies a mimetic aspect to καθώς (see, e.g. Gospel of John, 475, 525). Although van der Merwe rightly notes the significance of καθώς in John’s Gospel, he does not clarify when καθώς indicates mimesis and when mere comparison, thus being in danger of claiming too many instances of mimesis from καθώς (‘Imitatio Christi’, 139–40). 52. The believer–Jesus mimesis occurs in John 6:57; 12:26; 13:14, 15, 34; 14:3, 12, 19; 15:10, 12; 17:14, 16, 18, 24; 20:21; 1 John 2:6; 3:2, 3, 7, 16. The believer–God mimesis occurs in 1 John 4:11, 17, although it is debatable whether the object of imitation in 1 John 4:17 is God or Jesus (see under category 3 in Section 2.2). The believer’s imitation of both the Father and Son occurs in John 10:14-15; 17:11, 21, 22b. In our estimation, John 8:38-39 constitutes a weak case of an implied believer–God mimesis (see Section 4.1.3). See also Appendix 1. 53. John 8:38-39; 13:14, 15, 34; 15:12; 1 John 2:6; 3:12, 16; 4:11; 3 John 11. See also Appendix 1. 54. John 13:14, 15, 34; 15:12; 1 John 2:6; 3:16; 4:11. 1 John 3:12 refers to the believers’ non-imitation of Cain, and 3 John 11 to Gaius’s imitation of good (people).

The Johannine Mimetic Language

63

2.4 Conclusion In this chapter, we provided an extensive survey of all mimetic occurrences in the Johannine literature. We found that John uses eight different linguistic constructions to create about forty-four occurrences of mimesis throughout the Johannine Corpus.55 This provides the basis and legitimacy to speak of a Johannine concept of mimesis. The Johannine literature presents two types of mimesis – performative mimesis and existential mimesis – and the two prominent mimetic categories are the Son–Father mimesis and the believer–Jesus/God mimesis. The latter category occurs primarily in paraenetic sections of the Johannine literature and contains many mimetic imperatives, suggesting that mimesis is a prominent instrument of ethical instruction for the believer’s relationship with the Father and Son. It would be fair to conclude that mimesis is both varied (in terms of different mimetic expressions) and widespread (in terms of where mimesis occurs) in the Johannine literature. Realizing that not every occurrence indicates mimesis with equal clarity, I developed the heuristic device of ‘mimetic strength’ to situate each occurrence on a mimetic spectrum with a sliding scale ‘strong’, ‘medium’ and ‘weak’ to express our certainty of the presence of mimesis in each passage. Even if there is uncertainty about a few texts, it would not negate the presence of the concept of mimesis in the Johannine literature. Based on this linguistic foundation for the concept of mimesis in the Johannine literature, we can start to explore and unpack the various forms of Johannine mimesis to understand how it works. I will start by examining the concept of mimesis within the Godhead in Chapter 3 and then examine the believer–Jesus (and even believer–God) mimesis in Chapter 4.

55. Only John 1–4 and 2 John do not contain mimetic occurrences.

Chapter 3 Divine Mimesis

In the previous chapter, I outlined the Johannine mimetic language and concluded that the concept of mimesis is both varied and widespread in the Johannine literature. The linguistic analysis showed the existence of the Johannine concept of mimesis and provided a legitimate basis for further study. Consequently, in this chapter, I begin to unpack the mimesis within the Godhead, comprising a dominant Son–Father mimesis (Section 3.1) and a latent Spirit–Jesus mimesis (Section 3.2). It is appropriate to start with divine mimesis for two reasons. One, the first occurrences to mimesis in the Gospel of John (5:19, 21, 26) all refer to divine mimesis. Two, the Son–Father mimesis is often paradigmatic for the believer–Jesus mimesis (see further Chapter 4).

3.1 The Son–Father Mimesis Before I explore the Johannine concept of divine filial mimesis, I will outline the relationship between God and Jesus in the Johannine literature. 3.1.1 The Son–Father Relationship The relationship between God and Jesus must be understood in the context of family because throughout the Johannine writings, God relates to Jesus as Father, and Jesus to God as Son.1 When we examine the essential qualities of this divine nucleus, I contend that the filial relationship between the Father and Son is primarily characterized or constituted by life, light, love, truth and honour. I will explain briefly here, and return to the concept of divine family in Section 5.2.

1. The term πατήρ (‘father’) occurs 154 times in the Johannine literature (37% of all occurrences in the New Testament), of which about 137 (almost 90%) are references to God. The term υἱός (‘son’) occurs seventy-nine times in the Johannine writings, of which sixty-seven occurrences (i.e. 85%) refer to Jesus as the Son, Son of Man or Son of God.

66

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

In the Johannine literature, ζωή is the everlasting, indestructible life that the Father and Son have in themselves and share (1:4; 5:26; 11:25-26), and essentially defines them (see Jesus’ assertion ἐγώ εἰμι . . . ἡ ζωή (11:25; 14:6; cf. 1 John 5:20)). Life, therefore, is an existential identity marker of the Father and Son. The Father and Son are also characterized by light. God is introduced or defined as light in 1 John 1:5 and Jesus is depicted as light throughout the Gospel (e.g. 1:4-9; 8:12; 12:46). Like life, light describes who the Father and Son are. The Father and Son are also characterized by mutual love (3:35; 5:20; 14:31). Love is also an existential identity marker that defines the Father (1 John 4:8, 16) and the Son (in 17:26, God’s love in the believer is equated to Jesus residing in the believer). For John, ἀ λήθεια (‘truth’) is or represents the divine reality – the reality about God and the world above – and it is the content of Jesus’ revelation/teaching. Therefore, Jesus’ entire ministry can be summed up as a testimony to the truth (3:31-35; 8:31-32; 18:37). Like the other qualities, truth is an existential identity marker that defines the Father (3:33; 17:3) and the Son (1:14; 14:6; 1 John 5:20). Finally, δόξα (‘honour’) was the most significant indicator of one’s status or value in the first-century society.2 Jesus’ ascribed honour is unmatched: his is a preexistent status or worth as the Father’s unique (μονογενής) Son (1:14; 17:5). At the same time, Jesus accrues honour by finishing the work that the Father has assigned to him (17:1-5) – in his death (the crucifixion is Jesus’ coronation), resurrection (the evidence that he has life in himself (10:17-18; 11:25)) and ascension (his rightful return to the Father from whom he came (16:28; 17:5)). The Father and Son often affirm or enhance each other’s honour (8:49, 54; 13:3132; 14:13; 17:1-5), so it is reciprocal. In sum, the Father–Son relationship in the Johannine writings is characterized, even constituted, by the perpetual flow of life, light, love, truth and honour between them. This relationship between the Father and Son, however, is not exclusive; believers are drawn in and participate in this divine relationship through a birth of God or ‘from above’ when they accept, that is believe in, Jesus (1:12-13; 3:35; 1 John 5:1). One advantage of depicting the relationship between Jesus and God in familial terms is its natural capacity for expansion and inclusivity. John thus uses the language of ‘birth’ (‘to be born’, the passive form of γεννᾶν, occurs twenty-six times in the Johannine literature) and ‘children’ (τέκνα/τεκνία) to show that people can be included in this divine family (e.g. 1:12-13; 3:3, 5; 1 John 3:9; 5:1). But the Son–Father relationship is also characterized by another important dynamic, namely mimesis, and to this aspect we now turn.

2. See Malina, New Testament World, 27–57; Richard Rohrbaugh, ‘Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World’, in Neufeld and DeMaris, Understanding the Social World of the New Testament, 109–25; and specifically for the Johannine literature, Malina and Rohrbaugh, Gospel of John, 121–24; Neyrey, Gospel of John, 16–21. Looking at John’s Gospel, Jesper Tang Nielsen confirms that δόξα is a divine identity marker, ‘The Narrative Structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 56 (2010): 355–59.

Divine Mimesis

67

3.1.2 The Paradigm of the Son–Father Mimesis The first occurrence of mimesis in the Gospel of John occurs in 5:19 and specifies (appropriately) the paradigm for the Son–Father mimesis: Ἀπεκρίνατο οὖν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα· ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ. Jesus said to them, ‘I strongly assure you, the Son can do nothing from himself, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does these things likewise.’

In general, unqualified terms, Jesus claims that he cannot do anything by himself – he ‘merely’ does what he sees the Father doing.3 In Chapter 2, I explained that the adverb ὁμοίως in 5:19 denotes mimesis. The Son imitates whatever he observes from the Father.4 This raises various questions: What kind of things does he see the Father do? Where does Jesus observe the Father’s actions? How is he able to do so? Before I try to answer these questions, we must consider the context and circumstances that cause Jesus to make this extraordinary claim. John 5 starts the larger section John 5–12, which describes the increasing opposition to Jesus. Here, in John 5, the controversy between Jesus and ‘the Jews’ revolves around Jesus’ healing an invalid at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath (5:1-16).5 The issue is not so much that Jesus performs a miracle but that he has done it on the Sabbath. According to Jesus’ opponents, Jesus has violated Sabbath regulations (5:16).6 As Steve Bryan aptly notes, what is at issue is the legitimacy 3. Jesus’ assertion that οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ echoes that of Moses in Num 16:28 LXX: κύριος ἀπέστειλέν με ποιῆσαι πάντα τὰ ἔργα ταῦτα ὅτι οὐκ ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ. Hence, Jesus places himself in the Mosaic tradition of YHWH’s great messengers (Xavier LéonDufour, Lecture de l’Évangile selon Jean, 3 vols. (Paris: Seuil, 1988, 1990, 1993), 2:45). Similarly, Daniel Rathnakara Sadananda suggests that the phrase ‘the Son can do nothing from himself ’ in 5:19 alludes to the prophetic tradition rooted in Num 16:28 where the prophet can only do that which God empowers him to do (The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God, BZNW 121 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 61). 4. Contra Sadananda, who understands this verse in terms of analogy (Johannine Exegesis, 59–63). Similarly, van der Watt explains the Son–Father dynamic in 5:19-23 in terms of analogy: ‘Was Gott Jesus vormacht, ist daher nur analog dem, was ein gewöhnlicher Vater seinem Sohn vormacht. In der Parabel wird nur mittels einer Analogie ausgesagt, dass der Vater zeigt, gibt und tut, aber die Aufmerksamkeit konzentriert sich nicht darauf, wie er das genau tut’ (‘Meisterschüler Gottes’, 745–47 (quotation from p. 747 with original emphasis)). In Section 3.1.4, I will suggest the ‘how’ of the Son–Father mimesis. 5. For a detailed discussion of the invalid at the pool, see Bennema, Encountering Jesus, 185–99. 6. The invalid had also violated the Sabbath because he carried his mat (5:10). The Pharisaic oral tradition painstakingly spelled out what could and could not be done on the

68

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

of using God’s power on the Sabbath, and whether Jesus could be regarded as exercising God’s power in a way that violated God’s will.7 Jesus’ enigmatic reply in 5:17 addresses the issue: ὁ πατήρ μου ἕως ἄρτι ἐργάζεται κἀγὼ ἐργάζομαι (‘my Father is working until now, I also am working’).8 Although this verse contains no explicit mimetic expression, I contend that it hints at mimesis because it seems that just as the Father is working, Jesus is also working. Jesus claims that it is legitimate for him to be working on the Sabbath because even God is at work on the Sabbath. This remains an enigmatic claim till we reach 5:19, where Jesus explains that he simply does what he sees the Father doing. In effect, if God is continually working, which means also on the Sabbath, then so must Jesus because he imitates the Father in everything.9 In 5:20, Jesus gives a rationale for this Son–Father mimesis: ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all the things that he is doing; he will even show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished.

The Father’s love for the Son is the motive or driving force behind his showing the Son all his ἔργα (‘works’) (cf. 3:35). We must note the verbal and conceptual parallels between 5:19-20 and 3:34-35. In both instances, the Father’s love for the Son is the motivation for giving the Son access to everything (πάντα) in the heavenly realm. In 3:34-35, the Father’s love for the Son results in his giving everything (the entire revelation) to the Son so that he can speak God’s words on earth. In 5:19-20, the Father’s love for the Son results in his showing the Son everything (all his ἔργα) so that he can do them on earth.10 ‘Showing’ is the first Sabbath. The Mishnah, which reflects this oral tradition, mentions for instance that ‘the generative categories of acts of labor [prohibited on the Sabbath] are forty less one: . . . (39) he who transports an object from one domain to another’ (m. Shabbat 7.2; cf. Neh 13:19; Jer 17:21). 7. Steven M. Bryan, ‘Power in the Pool: The Healing of the Man at Bethesda and Jesus’ Violation of the Sabbath (John. 5:1-18)’, TynBul 54 (2003): 14–16. 8. Although an adverbial καί results in a somewhat inept English translation, a coordinate καί produces an equally awkward translation (‘my Father is working until now, and I am working’). Perhaps the best translation is: ‘My Father is working until now; likewise, I am working.’ 9. For God’s perpetual activity, see C.H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 320–22. 10. C.K. Barrett draws attention to scholars’ observation that 5:19-20a contains a parable: ‘A son . . . apprenticed to his father does only what he sees his father doing, but his father shows him all the processes that belong to his craft’ (The Gospel according to St John, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978), 259). George R. Beasley-Murray contests this. In light of many similar statements in the Gospel (e.g. 7:28; 8:28; 12:49; 14:10), he contends that ‘vv 19-20 originate not in a generalized parable that depicts the relation of any son to

Divine Mimesis

69

step in the mimetic process because someone must do something tangible in order that the imitator can observe and repeat it.11 That is why ‘telling’ someone what to do, and the person then obeying the instruction (cf. 14:31), does not constitute mimesis. I return to the first of the questions we raised earlier: What kind of things does the Son see the Father do that he can emulate? While the actions in 5:19 are unspecified, I will decide what they are by examining in the immediate and wider Johannine context (i) the kind of activities that are associated with ποιεῖν and (ii) the reference of the unspecified τι (‘what’), ἃ ἂν (‘whatever’) and ταῦτα (‘these things’) in 5:19. Recently, Ruben Zimmermann has highlighted the prominence of ποιεῖν (‘to do, act, make’) in the Johannine literature and its ethical aspect.12 A brief investigation reveals that Jesus is often the subject of various actions: ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα (e.g. 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:54; 6:2; 7:31; 9:16; 11:47; 12:37; 20:30; cf. ποιεῖν ὑγιῆ in 5:11, 15); ποιεῖν μαθητάς (4:1); ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ (4:34; 6:38); ποιεῖν τὰ ἔργα (τοῦ πατρός/θεοῦ) (5:19-20, 36; 10:25, 37-38; 15:24; cf. 17:4); ποιεῖν κρίσιν (5:27); ζῳοποιεῖν (5:21); ποιεῖν τὰ ἀρεστὰ τῷ θεῷ (8:29). In John 5, it seems reasonable to infer that the activity of ποιεῖν ὑγιῆ (5:11, 15) is included in ποιεῖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός (5:19-20, 36) and synonymous with ἐργάζεσθαι (5:17). While πάντα (‘all things’) in 5:20a does not clarify the mimesis in 5:19, 5:20b reveals that the unspecified τι, ἃ ἂν and ταῦτα in 5:19 and πάντα in 5:20a are ἔργα.

his father, but in a deep consciousness of the unique relation of the Son to the Father’ (John, WBC 36 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 75; see also Sadananda, Johannine Exegesis, 59–60). In my view, however, both observations are correct: while the Son is uniquely dependent on the Father, this mimetic dependency also resembles the son–father relationship in antiquity with reference to their trade (cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, 2 vols., AB 29–29A (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970), 1:218; Keener, Gospel of John, 648–49; Andrew T. Lincoln, The Gospel according to Saint John, BNTC 4 (London: Continuum 2005), 202). Brant also notes that mimesis is the key pedagogical method of instruction in antiquity (John, 105–6). 11. In turn, the Son ‘shows’ the invisible Father to people so that they may know him, indicating that the Son is the Father’s self-revelation (1:18; 10:32; 14:8-9). As the Son imitates the Father, it is natural that those observing the Son, ‘see’ the Father. The verb δεικνύειν means ‘to exhibit something that can be apprehended by one or more of the senses’ (BDAG, s.v.), and hence can refer to both a visible and audible demonstration. In 5:20, there must have been a visual demonstration because this is coupled with the use of βλέπειν in 5:19. The Father’s audible instruction to the Son occurs in texts such as 8:26, 28; 12:50; 15:15 (see Section 3.1.3). Likewise, Heinrich Schlier notes that the δεικνύειν τὸν πατέρα connotes revelation in action, a disclosure of the Father in the words and works of the Son (‘δείκνυμι, κτλ.’, TDNT 2:28). Sadananda is surely mistaken in taking a clue from the Pauline idea of Christ’s self-emptying to interpret the Father’s ‘showing’ of all as the Father emptying himself unreservedly in the Son (Johannine Exegesis, 63). 12. Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 52–53.

70

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Although this observation appears to be of little help because the kind of work is unspecified, the wider Johannine context will resolve this. The phrase τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ or τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ is an important Johannine concept, denoting the salvific mission that the Father has given Jesus to carry out. In 4:34, Jesus succinctly states his mission: ἐμὸν βρῶμά ἐστιν ἵνα ποιήσω τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με καὶ τελειώσω αὐτοῦ τὸ ἔργον (‘my food is to do the will of my Father and to complete his work; cf. 5:30; 6:38).13 Jesus’ purpose for coming into the world is to do the will (θέλημα) of the Father, that is, to complete his work (ἔργον).14 Since the θέλημα of the Father is that people believe in the Son and have eternal life (6:40), the implication is that the Father’s ἔργον is salvific in nature. It consists of drawing people to Jesus and saving them, by what Jesus does and completes at the cross (6:39-40, 44; 12:32; cf. the use of τελειῶσαι in 4:34 and 17:4; 19:30).15 There is little distinction between the singular ἔργον and plural ἔργα. In 4:34, Jesus refers to his life-giving mission in terms of completing the singular ἔργον that the Father has given him, which he achieves at the cross (17:4; 19:28, 30), but in 5:36, he speaks of completing the plural ἔργα that the Father has given him.16 Within the context of this singular ἔργον, Jesus performs plural ἔργα, usually unspecified but including activities such as miraculous signs (7:21, 23; 9:3). Jesus’ ἔργα are not his own (texts such as 5:19 and 8:28 make this clear) but God’s ἔργα. The phrase ποιεῖν (τὰ ἔργα) is synonymous with ἐργάζεσθαι (τὰ ἔργα) (6:28, 30; 9:4; cf. 5:17 and 5:19-20). If we bring all this together, I suggest that the Son–Father mimesis in 5:19 refers to work as far as it relates to the restoration of people – both physically, socially and spiritually (salvation).17 In short, the Son imitates the life-giving or salvific

13. Peter W. Ensor states that doing God’s will and accomplishing his work was a sine qua non of Jesus’ existence (Jesus and His ‘Works’: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective, WUNT II/85 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), 151). 14. I take καί in 4:34 as epexegetical, explaining what doing the Father’s will involves. 15. Similarly, when the crowd enquires about τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ in reply to Jesus exhortation ἐργάζεσθαι for food that leads to eternal life (cf. 6:51), Jesus explains that the single ἔργον that God requires from them is πιστεύειν in Jesus (6:27-29). Thus, people’s ἔργον is πιστεύειν in Jesus. 16. Since τελειῶσαι in 4:34; 5:36; 17:4 and τελεῖν in 19:28, 30 overlap semantically, and since ἔργον is the subject of τελειῶσαι in 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, τελεῖν in 19:28, 30 most likely also refers to the completion of God’s work by Jesus. 17. See also J. Ramsey Michaels, who contends that the reference is ‘the works of God subsequent to creation’, including healings and other ways of giving life (The Gospel of John, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 310). Johannes Beutler even wishes to include the work of creation (1:3) (Das Johannesevangelium: Kommentar (Freiburg: Herder, 2013), 193). Contra Christos Karakolis, who claims that ἔργον with reference to God and Jesus simply means miracle (‘Semeia Conveying Ethics in the Gospel according to John’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 199). While the ‘greater works’ in 5:20 could refer to Jesus’ raising of the dead at the end of times (5:25-29), it does not adequately explain the phrase ‘so that you will be astonished’. The reference is perhaps to

Divine Mimesis

71

works of the Father. The answer to the question, ‘What kind of things does the Son see the Father do in order to imitate them?,’ is then ‘all the activities the Father does in order to restore or save people’. Before I can answer the other questions about the where and how of this Son–Father mimesis, we must examine further occurrences of this divine filial mimesis in the Johannine literature in order to determine its scope and content. 3.1.3 Specific Occurrences of the Son–Father Mimesis In the previous section, we learnt that 5:19-20 describes the general or paradigmatic Son–Father mimesis, referring to the Son’s doing the Father’s life-giving or salvific work(s). In this section, I will explore other texts that mention specific mimetic activities in the Son–Father relationship. To Be a Source of Life (5:21, 26). Within the parameters of the general Son– Father mimesis of salvific work, we find a specific salvific Son–Father mimesis in 5:21 and 5:26, both by means of a ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως καί construction (see also Section 2.2, category 7). John 5:21 states that just as the Father has the ability to give life (ζῳοποιεῖν), so does the Son. The verb ζῳοποιεῖν denotes a unique divine function, and is used in the Johannine literature only with reference to the Father (5:21a), the Son (5:21b) and the Spirit (6:63).18 The idea is that the Son, in imitation of the Father, is a source of life to people.19 In addition, the Son has control over the

the miraculous feeding in John 6, the healing of the man born blind in John 9 and the raising of Lazarus in John 11 (as a foretaste of the eschatological reality mentioned in 5:21, 25-29), or, more likely, in a general reference to Jesus’ ability to give life to people (5:21) (see also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St John, 3 vols. (London: Burns & Oates, 1968, 1980, 1982), 2:104–5; Ulrich Wilckens, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, NTD 4 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998), 116; Beasley-Murray, John, 76; Klaus Wengst, Das Johannesevangelium, 2 vols., THKNT 4.1–4.2 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000, 2001), 1:197; Hartwig Thyen, Das Johannesevangelium, 2nd ed., HKNT 6 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015), 309–11; Zumstein, Johannesevangelium, 222). 18. Richard Bauckham makes a compelling case for Jesus’ inclusion in the divine identity based on his sharing the unique divine functions of being sole Creator and Judge (Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 1–59). This evidently applies to John’s Gospel since 5:21-27 explicitly attributes these divine functions to Jesus. 19. Bultmann essentially denies the concept of mimesis here. Dismissing the idea that two divine figures work alongside each other, he stresses that the Father works through the Son (Gospel of John, 256; see also Wilckens, Evangelium nach Johannes, 116; Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 1:197–98; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 309). While agreeing that the Father and Son do not work in parallel, they do seem to operate in tandem where the Father is the first cause and the Son carries out the Father’s work by imitating him. In denying the Father and Son working Nebeneinander and suggesting the idea of Ineinander, these German scholars neglect the possibility of them working Nacheinander.

72

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

distribution of life (οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ).20 John 5:26 expresses a similar mimetic idea in that just as the Father has life in himself (ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ), so also the Son has life in himself (cf. 1:4).21 In fact, 5:26 explains that the Son has life in himself because the Father has given the Son this prerogative (cf. 17:2). In John’s theology, the innate quality of having ζωή is a defining attribute of God (see Section 3.1.1). The Son is so closely associated with the divine ζωή that he can claim εἶναι ἡ ζωή (11:25; 14:6), that is, he embodies or represents life and is able to distribute it at will. While the Son’s ability in 5:21 to give life in imitation of the Father denotes a performative mimesis, the Son’s ability in 5:26 to have life in himself in imitation of the Father is an existential mimesis or imitation of being. However, we need not distinguish too sharply between the types of mimesis in 5:21 and 5:26 because the shared idea is that the Son is a source of life in imitation of the Father. While the Prologue may give the impression that the Son is an independent source of ζωή (1:1, 4), 5:21, 26 explains that the Father has caused the Son to be a source of life in imitation of him. This idea is repeated in 6:57, where Jesus states that he lives because of the Father (κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα). Thus, the Son is a source of life and has autonomy over its distribution but not independent of the Father.22 To Speak/Teach (8:26, 28; 12:50; 15:15). Jesus’ main activity is teaching (6:59; 7:14-17, 28, 35; 8:2, 20; 18:19-20), and he is often identified as a (God-sent) teacher (1:38; 3:2; 8:4; 11:28; 13:13-14; 20:16). As a teacher, Jesus speaks the very words of God (3:34). Indeed, Jesus repeatedly claims that he only speaks and teaches what

20. See also Barrett, Gospel according to St John, 260. 21. The phrase ‘to have life in himself ’ (ἔχειν ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ) is a unique divine prerogative and hence reserved for the Father and Son (5:26). Although the phrase occurs in 6:53 with reference to believers, this is qualified by the prerequisite of accepting Jesus. Similarly, in the parallel verse 6:54, the phrase that believers ‘have’ (eternal) life means something like them having ‘a share in the divine life of the Father and Son’. Believers do not have life independent of their relationship with Jesus. This becomes clear in 6:57, where a mimetic construction clarifies that believers depend on Jesus for life, just as Jesus depends on the Father. Nevertheless, there are similarities and differences in the mimesis. The similarity lies in the mimetic dependency for life – believers are dependent on Jesus, who in turn is dependent on the Father. The difference is that while the Father has granted that the Son is a source of life, believers only have (access to) the divine life as long as they partake in their relationship with the Father and Son. As such, they can be a derivative source of life to others (7:38). Whereas the Son can give life (ζῳοποιεῖν) because he is a direct, autonomous source of life, believers can only pass on this life as a derivative source (7:38). Hence, there is both continuity and discontinuity. See also Marianne Meye Thompson, The God of the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 77–80. 22. It still is the Father who ‘gives’ or ‘draws’ people to the Son (6:37, 39, 44, 65; 17:2, 6, 9). Hence, the Son’s choice to give life to whoever he wishes (5:21) is still dependent on the Father’s choice to give whoever he wishes to the Son (17:2) (see also Michaels, Gospel of John, 312).

Divine Mimesis

73

the Father tells him (7:16-17; 8:26, 28, 38; 12:49-50; 14:24; 15:15; 17:8, 14).23 Some of these texts show a mimetic dynamic where the Son speaks what the Father tells him. The Son–Father mimesis of speaking is most explicit in 8:28 and 12:50 (indicated by καθώς and καθώς . . . οὕτως, respectively), to a lesser extent in 8:26 and 15:15, and possibly in 8:38 (see Section 2.2, category 9). This mimesis creates congruent speech – the Son’s words are the Father’s words (3:34; 14:14; 17:8) and the Son’s teaching is the Father’s teaching (7:16).24 There are linguistic indicators that Jesus’ imitation of the Father’s words is a specific case of the general Son– Father mimesis mentioned in 5:19. In 8:28, the phrase ἀπ᾽ ἐμαυτοῦ ποιῶ οὐδέν (‘I do nothing from myself ’), immediately followed by the mimetic construction καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ, echoes 5:19 where Jesus first states that he can do nothing from himself before he proclaims the general Son–Father mimesis. In 12:49, the phrase ἐγὼ ἐξ ἐμαυτοῦ οὐκ ἐλάλησα (‘I have not spoken from myself ’), followed by the mimetic construction in 12:50, also reflects the order and content of 5:19. There is a further connection between the mimesis of speech and the mimesis of praxis referred to in 5:19. Jesus’ revelatory words or teaching have a soteriological dimension in that they contain liberating, life-giving truth about the divine reality (6:63, 68; 8:31-32; 12:49-50). So, just as the Son–Father mimesis of doing relates to life-giving work, also the Son–Father mimesis of speaking relates to life-giving teaching. In the next section, we will discuss whether this mimesis of speech refers to verbal reiteration or allows for faithful paraphrasing. To Love (15:9). Just as the Father loves the Son, so also the Son loves the disciples (15:9; καθώς . . . καί construction). The Son imitates the Father in that Jesus’ love for the disciples is patterned after the Father’s love for him.25 The love between the

23. For the concept of divine instruction (the Father educating the Son), see Stephen E. Witmer, Divine Instruction in Early Christianity, WUNT II/246 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 95–105; van der Watt, Family of the King, 272–78. 24. See also Witmer, Divine Instruction, 96–97. Witmer mentions that the idea of imitation in ancient education is common: for example, in Prov 23:26; Sir 30:3-4; Philo (Virt. 66; Sacr. 65), Dio Chrysostom (De Homero et Socrate 55.4-5), Rabbinic literature (m. Sukkah 3.9; b. Ber. 23a, 24a, 38b, 62a; b. Šabb. 40-41) (Divine Instruction, 97–98). Lincoln notes the allusions in 8:28 and 12:50 to Deut 18:18, referring to the promised prophet-likeMoses, who will speak the very words that God has put in his mouth (Gospel according to Saint John, 248, 361). Van der Watt notes another pattern of mimetic education: just as the Father has educated Jesus, so Jesus educates the disciples (Family of the King, 278; see also figures 31 and 32 on p. 273 and p. 279, respectively). See also Riesner, Jesus als Lehrer, 430– 31; Pheme Perkins, Jesus as Teacher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), ch. 1. 25. Only Jean Zumstein comes close to the idea of mimesis: ‘L’amour du Père pour le Fils est le fondement et le modèle de l’amour du Fils pour les disciples’ (L’Évangile selon Saint Jean, 2 vols., CNT IVa–b (Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007), 2:105). Others merely see analogy or parallelism (D.A. Carson, The Gospel according to John (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1991), 520; Lincoln, Gospel according to Saint John, 405; Christian Dietzfelbinger, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, 2 vols., Zürcher Bibelkommentare 4 (Zürich: TVZ, 2001), 2:107).

74

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Father and Son is not just reciprocal (3:35; 5:20; 14:31), but is extended to others through the dynamic of mimesis. In essence, the reciprocal love between the Father and Son operates or remains within the boundaries of the divine nucleus, but mimetic love breaks this mould open and includes others in this shared love of the Father and Son. We saw a similar dynamic in 5:21, 26: the divine life that the Father and Son share is extended to believers who are subsequently drawn into this life-giving relationship with the Father and Son. I will elaborate on this mimetic chain of love in Section 4.3.2. To Send (17:18; 20:21). The καθώς . . . καί construction in both verses creates a mimesis of sending, where Jesus’ sending the disciples into the world is patterned after his own sending into the world by the Father. Often, Jesus refers to the Father as ‘the one who sent me’ (1:33; 6:44, 57; 7:28; 8:26, 29; 9:4; 13:20; 16:5) and speaks of himself as ‘the one who was sent’ (3:34; 5:38; 6:29; 10:36; 17:3). The Johannine concept of sending has a clear soteriological dimension in that the Father has sent Jesus into the world to save it (3:17; 6:29; 1 John 4:9-10, 14). Based on the mimesis of sending, the Father’s salvific work, which is Jesus’ salvific mission, is continued through the disciples’ salvific mission (cf. 17:20). The mimesis of sending refers to the imitation of purpose, intent and message. Just as the Father sent Jesus into the world as his agent, to do what he does and speak what he says, in order to save people, Jesus sends the disciples into the world as his agents, to continue the same work and proclaim the same message (4:38; 14:12; 15:27; 17:20) (see further Section 4.4.1).26 To Honour (17:22). As we noted in Section 3.1.1, δόξα (‘honour’) was the most significant indicator of one’s status or value in the first-century society. Honour also characterizes the relationship of the Father and Son. Similar to life and love, honour is extended to those who have entered the divine family by means of mimesis. Just as the Father has honoured the Son, Jesus honours the disciples – and by extension future believers (17:22).27 This is an ascribed honour that affirms the believer’s status in the divine family (cf. 20:17, where Jesus calls the disciples ἀδελφοί for the first time). In sum, while 5:19 speaks of the Son–Father mimesis in broad, general terms (the Son imitates the Father in all he does), specific mimetic activities include giving life, speaking, loving, sending and honouring. Having outlined the scope and content of the Son–Father mimesis, we are now in a position to examine the precise mechanics and nature of this divine mimesis.

26. Here too, the mimesis has elements of continuity and discontinuity: on the one hand, Jesus’ sending the disciples is patterned after the Father’s sending him into the world; and on the other, the Son enters the world through the incarnation and finishes the Father’s work while the disciples ‘simply’ testify to this work. 27. In Section 2.2 under category 9, I suggested that this is not a clear case of mimesis, so I will not make too much of this text. Besides the possible idea of mimetic honour, there is reciprocal honour between the Father and Son so that they mutually honour each other (17:1; cf. 13:31-32; 17:4-5).

Divine Mimesis

75

3.1.4 The Mechanics and Nature of the Son–Father Mimesis In this section, I return to two issues raised earlier but not yet discussed, namely the questions about the where and how of this Son–Father mimesis. First, where does Jesus see the Father’s actions and hear the Father’s words so that he can imitate them? In John’s dualistic worldview, there are only two spatial locations or spheres: heaven (οὐρανός) or the realm above (ἄνωθεν or ἐκ τῶν ἄνω), and the created world (κόσμος) or realm below (ἐκ τῶν κάτω) (e.g. 3:31; 8:23). God the Father, who is invisible, resides in heaven (1:18; 12:28; 17:4) and hence this must be the place where he operates and shows everything to the Son. However, this creates the problem that there is no natural contact between the two realms (3:13). While the invisible Father resides in heaven, the visible Son (Jesus) is on earth to carry out the Father’s work. So, how is Jesus on earth able to observe the Father’s actions and hear the Father’s words in heaven? The answer lies in the uniqueness of the incarnation. The one who has come to earth and taken on humanity is, according to John, in the unique position to testify to what he has seen and heard in the heavenly realm (3:12-13, 31-32) and therefore able to reveal the Father (1:18; 6:46; 8:38). This could suggest that prior to the incarnation, the Father showed the blueprint of his work to the Son, who subsequently carried it out on earth. While this is certainly possible, I contend that John presents an alternative scenario: that Jesus on earth has a continuous access to heaven, so is in constant communication with his heavenly Father, and that this dynamic is realized by means of the Spirit. First, Jesus is presented as the point of contact between heaven and earth; he has continuous, open access to heaven (1:51).28 Next, the present participle ποιοῦντα in 5:19b indicates that the action occurs simultaneously with the action in the main verb, so that Jesus asserts that he can only do ‘what he sees the Father (presently) doing’. Hence, the use of the future tense in 5:20b, ‘He will show him greater works than these (i.e. those in 5:1-18),’ would indicate the Father’s ongoing unfolding of his plan to the Son, who subsequently actualizes it on earth. Observing the present tenses of δύνασθαι, ποιεῖν and βλέπειν in 5:19, Hartwig Thyen comments, ‘Nicht von der Erinnerung an das Tun eines göttlichen Vaters in der Zeit der mythischen Präexistenz seines himmlichen Sohnes ist hier also die Rede, sondern vom gegenwärtigen Sehen, Tun und Reden dessen, der hier spricht.’29 The force of 5:19-20 is that the Son continuously does on earth what he continuously sees the

28. The present tense of the participles ἀναβαίνοντας and καταβαίνοντας in 1:51 probably denotes that the access to heavenly revelation is an ongoing, current activity. See also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 105–6. 29. Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 309 (original emphasis). Keener also asserts that the present tense implies a continuous relationship and not simply occasional visions (Gospel of John, 648). Contra Michaels, who contends that the present tense simply reflects the timeless, parable-like character of Jesus’ words that any son does what he sees his father doing (Gospel of John, 308–9).

76

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Father doing in heaven because the Father continuously shows the Son his ἔργα.30 In 11:41-42 and 12:27-28, we have other examples of the ongoing communication between Jesus on earth and the Father in heaven. Although in 8:26, 28, 38 and 12:49-50 the Father’s instruction is expressed by aorist and perfect tenses and Jesus’ telling by present tenses, this simply shows that Jesus’ words come after hearing the Father’s words, but these instances of hearing–speaking probably occur during Jesus’ ministry. Therefore, I suggest that a reference to a ‘pre-incarnational blueprint’ where the Father and Son talked through every detail of what the Son would do and say on earth is unlikely because John seems to indicate that Jesus on earth was in continual communication with his Father in heaven.31 The ‘how’ of the Son–Father mimesis relates to two issues: the manner in which the Son observes and imitates the Father (continuously) and the means by which he does so (the Spirit). Regarding the manner, I suggested that the Son can observe what is going on in heaven because he has continuous access to this realm and testifies to its happenings. Regarding the means, it seems that the Son is in constant communication with the Father and can observe the heavenly reality by means of the Spirit. If Jesus’ anointing with the Spirit in 1:32 alludes to the coming of the Spirit on the Messiah in Isaiah 11:2 (as many scholars concede), then the Spirit would be expected to provide Jesus specifically with revelatory wisdom and knowledge to carry out his messianic ministry.32 This would include being informed about the Father’s works, which Jesus will then carry out on earth. This coincides with the information in 3:34 that Jesus can speak God’s words because God has given Jesus the Spirit.33 Thus, John probably understood that during his earthly ministry Jesus was continuously in communication with his Father – through the Spirit – in which Jesus received information concerning what to do, speak, reveal and so on.34

30. In contrast, Bultmann argues that Jesus never describes or shows anything that he has seen or heard in the heavenly realm because Jesus’ revelation only consists of his speaking to people and challenging them to believe (Gospel of John, 253–55). 31. Applying this to the situation in John 5, Schnackenburg concludes, ‘It must mean that the Father led Jesus to the sick man at the pool and let him know that he should heal him’ (Gospel according to St John, 1:103). 32. See Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 163. 33. The subject of διδόναι is most likely God rather than Jesus (Ibid., 164–65). 34. While a few scholars have also addressed the issue of how the Son can carry out what he has seen and heard from the Father, no one has pointed to the Spirit to explain this dynamic. For example, while Ensor mentions that Jesus is being ‘assisted’ in carrying out God’s work, he explains this in terms of the Father himself acting in and through Jesus (Jesus and His ‘Works’, 284–89). Witmer contends that Jesus was instructed by the Father in heaven prior to the incarnation (based on the aorist tense of ἐδίδαξέν in 8:28b) and also that Jesus’ education from the Father continues on earth (based on 5:17-30) (Divine Instruction, 104–5), but he does not clarify how the Father continues to educate the Son on earth. Van der Watt hesitates to put any limitation of contact between the Father and Son and finds

Divine Mimesis

77

While this clarifies the mechanics of the Son–Father mimesis to a great extent, one last question remains. We noted that Jesus actualizes on earth what the Father intends in heaven in that he does what he sees in the Father’s presence and speaks what he hears from the Father by means of the Spirit through mimesis. Mimesis is thus instrumental to accomplish the Father’s work on earth. But how, in what manner, does Jesus imitate the Father? Does the Son replicate or clone what the Father says and does? I suggest that the Father showing or telling Jesus, who then mindlessly copies, is an unlikely scenario. By way of reductio ad absurdum, would Jesus have seen the Father enact the feeding of the 5,000 with the angels in heaven? Would Jesus have seen the Father hanging on a cross in heaven so that he could do likewise? Would Jesus have repeated the Father’s words verbatim on every occasion? According to 3:34, Jesus can speak the very words of God because he has received the Spirit, suggesting that the Spirit functions as the channel of communication between the Father and the Son. Therefore, it is unlikely that Jesus simply reiterated on earth what the Father had dictated to him in heaven or reproduced on earth what the Father had shown him in heaven. It is more likely that Jesus on earth was in continual communication with his Father in heaven through the Spirit. In addition, when we examine the mimesis in 5:21, for example, we note that the verse mentions different objects in 5:21a and 5:21b: the recipients of the divine life that the Father bestows are the resurrected dead while the recipients of the divine life that Jesus provides are those of his choosing. This would indicate that Jesus’ imitation of the Father is not a cloning or exact duplication but the creative expression of a divine prerogative. What is cloned or replicated is the giving of life.

evidence suggesting that the Son’s perception of the Father’s action and words refers both to his pre-existence and to a continuous process in the present. Ultimately, he concludes that the issue is unresolved and the reader is left with the mystery of the Father–Son relationship (Family of the King, 276–77). Elsewhere, however, van der Watt is more explicit, saying that ‘Jesus memorized and consequently did exactly what he was taught by his Father to do’ (‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, 426 (emphasis added)). In my view, this does injustice to the ongoing dynamic of the relationship between the Father and Son through the Spirit. William R.G. Loader argues that what the Son has seen and heard from the Father refers to the received revelation in his pre-existence rather than to his time on earth (The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues, BBET 23 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989), 148–54). Loader comes to this position partly because he wants to do justice to the concept of spacetime. Other reasons might be that, according to Loader, Jesus’ revelation lacks content, so that a continuous reception of information from the Father is unnecessary, and that Loader’s Jesus as the revealer-envoy is in no need of the Spirit. However, this does not do justice to Jesus’ communication with the Father while on earth. Moreover, if Loader had recognized the significance of the Spirit upon Jesus, he would have seen the possibility of the Spirit functioning as the channel of communication between the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth, and that it was the Spirit, rather than Jesus, who thus transcended the spacetime dimension. Nevertheless, I do not exclude the possibility that Jesus came to earth with pre-existent knowledge of himself and his Father.

78

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

When Jesus passes on what the Father tells him in his revelatory teaching, this is not necessarily the Father’s ipsissima verba but more likely the Father’s ipsissima vox, that is, a creative but faithful retelling of the Father’s teaching. The main Johannine thought seems that Jesus does nothing independent of the Father and the Son–Father mimesis has more to do with Jesus’ faithfully acting as or on behalf of God than a cloning of God’s words and actions. In other words, the Son–Father mimesis refers not so much to the Son’s literal replication of the Father’s words and actions as to a creative retelling and re-enaction. Putting all this together, the idea emerges that John presents a perpetual Son– Father mimesis where Jesus continuously does on earth what he sees the Father do in heaven by means of the Spirit through which he has an open, continuous access to the heavenly realm.

3.2 The Spirit–Jesus Mimesis The Spirit not only plays a crucial role in the Son–Father mimesis but is also part of another mimetic relationship within the divine family. Although no specific family label is given to the Spirit in the Johannine literature, there are ample reasons to consider the Spirit part of the divine family. First, among the Spirit’s functions are ζῳοποιεῖν (‘to give [divine] life’; 6:63) – a unique divine prerogative (cf. 5:21).35 Second, the Spirit is sometimes called ‘the Spirit of truth’ – a functional label for the Spirit’s role of communicating the truth, that is, to reveal the divine reality (14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. 1 John 5:6). Third, the Spirit appears to be the channel of communication between the Father in heaven and Jesus on earth (see Section 3.1.4). Fourth, the Spirit is instrumental in facilitating entry into the divine family (3:5), mediates the presence of Father and Son to the believer (14:17-18, 23; 1 John 3:24; 4:13), and is sent (presumably from heaven) by the Father and Son to the human members of the divine family (14:26; 15:26). Hence, it is difficult to deny that the Spirit is an essential member of the divine family.36 With his departure from this world imminent, Jesus promises his followers the Spirit-Paraclete, who will replace him and assist them in their ongoing mission. There are several indicators that the Spirit is patterned on Jesus. First, when Jesus tells his disciples that he will give them ἄλλος παράκλητος (14:16), the implication is that he is the first παράκλητος (cf. 1 John 2:1) and that the Spirit is modelled after him (ἄλλος is ‘another [of the same kind]’); and will take over

35. For a detailed discussion of how the Spirit provides life, see Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 202–6. I can also apply Richard Bauckham’s criteria for distinguishing the unique divine identity (see n. 18) to the Spirit. Among the Spirit’s functions are ‘to give (divine) life’ (6:63) and ‘to judge’ (ἐλέγχειν in 16:8 has the force ‘to convict’), so the Spirit must also be included in the divine identity. 36. See also Andreas J. Köstenberger and Scott R. Swain, Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel, NSBT 24 (Downers Grove: Apollos, 2008), 135–48.

Divine Mimesis

79

Jesus’ παράκλητος functions after Jesus’ departure.37 In other words, the Spirit will ‘imitate’ Jesus in his παράκλητος role. Second, the Spirit will specifically ‘imitate’ Jesus in his teaching function. In 14:26, Jesus informs his disciples that the Spirit will teach them everything and remind them of everything that he has told them: ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ]. The Spirit will not bring unfamiliar teaching because both occurrences of πάντα are qualified by the phrase ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ]. Hence, the Spirit’s teaching consists of what Jesus has taught. Similarly, the Spirit will not speak on his own but only what he hears from Jesus: οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει . . . ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν (16:13-15). This reminds us of other texts, which state that Jesus did not speak anything on his own but only what the Father instructed him (8:26, 28; 12:49-50; 14:10; 15:15). In fact, just as Jesus spoke what he simultaneously heard the Father say, so the future tense of the verbs ἀκούειν and λαλεῖν in 16:13 refers to simultaneous activities – the Spirit will speak what he hears Jesus say. The precise nature of the Spirit’s mimesis of Jesus’ didactic function probably lies between two extremes: on the one hand, the Spirit does not provide new teaching independent of Jesus’ historical teaching; on the other hand, the Spirit probably does not simply reiterate the ipsissima verba Jesu. It is more likely that the Spirit’s didactic role lies in explaining the meaning and significance of Jesus’ historical teaching in any culture and time. In other words, the Spirit faithfully recontextualizes Jesus’ original words for any given context.38 If the Spirit–Jesus mimesis involves the interpretation and recontextualization of Jesus’ teaching, it follows that mimesis has a cognitive aspect and is less about literal replication and more about a creative, faithful retelling of Jesus’ teaching, similar to what we concluded about the Son–Father mimesis in Section 3.1.4. In sum, the Spirit–Jesus mimesis refers, more broadly, to the Spirit’s imitation of Jesus as a παράκλητος and, specifically, to speaking/teaching. In fact, there seems to be a mimetic chain – the Son speaks what he hears from the Father and, in turn, the Spirit speaks what he hears from Jesus. This mimetic chain of teaching ensures that people hear God’s very words.39 Compared to the Son–Father mimesis, however, the Spirit–Jesus mimesis is more latent.

37. Bultmann (Gospel of John, 566–67) and Raymond E. Brown (‘The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel’, NTS 13 (1966–1967): 113–14, 126–27) were the first to point out the numerous functional parallels between Jesus and the Spirit-Paraclete. 38. See Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 228–34. 39. Witmer arrives at the same conclusion via another route. He focuses on how the prophecy of Isa 54:13 quoted in John 6:45a (‘and they shall all be taught by God’) is fulfilled in the teaching of Jesus. As Jesus receives direct, divine instruction from God and imitates him (e.g. 5:19-20; 7:16; 8:26, 28), so Jesus’ teaching perfectly mediates God’s word to people (Divine Instruction, 94–106).

80

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

3.3 Conclusion Our examination of divine mimesis in the Johannine writings has led to some significant findings. The Johannine literature depicts a concept of a divine family, comprising of the Father, Son and Spirit. Within this divine family, the Son–Father mimesis is dominant but there is also a latent Spirit–Jesus mimesis. The Spirit– Jesus mimesis refers to the following mimetic actions: broadly, to be a παράκλητος and, specifically, to speaking. The Son–Father mimesis includes the imitation of the following actions: generally, to do ‘everything’, and specifically, to give life, to speak, to love, to send and to honour. In fact, Jesus’ main activities of doing/working (ποιεῖν, ἐργάζεσθαι (e.g. ποιεῖν τὰ σημεῖα, ποιεῖν τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρός/θεοῦ)) and speaking/teaching (λαλεῖν, διδάσκειν) are rooted in the concept of mimesis – Jesus does what he sees the Father do and speaks what he hears the Father say. Regarding the where and how of mimesis, the Son continuously observes what the Father does and says in heaven by means of the Spirit so that he can imitate it on earth. Regarding the nature of mimesis, I suggest that it has more to do with a creative, faithful retelling and re-enactment of what the Father says and does rather than cloning. The divine family depicted in the Johannine writings is not exclusive. When people accept or believe in Jesus, they become part of the divine family through a birth of God or the Spirit. In the next chapter, we will examine how they become involved in various mimetic activities, and in Chapter 5, we will explore further the concept of family as a theological context for Johannine mimesis. At this point, however, I wish to highlight some implications of the Son–Father mimesis for believers as the human members of the divine family. Our study shows that many attributes that characterize the relationship of the Father and Son (life, light, love, truth, honour) play a part in mimesis. We have seen that in imitation of the Father, Jesus is a source of life, love and honour for his followers (Section 3.1.3). Even in the case of ‘truth’, it could be argued that Jesus imitates the Father in being a source of truth for people if we recognize the following syllogism: (i) Jesus speaks the Father’s words; (ii) Jesus’ words contain truth (e.g. 8:31-32; 18:37); (iii) hence, Jesus reiterates the truth that the Father speaks. Thus, ‘truth’ as the content of the Father and Son’s speech to people is linked to the specific mimetic activity of speaking. In John 8:40, we catch a glimpse of this implied mimetic aspect when Jesus declares that he is speaking the truth that he has heard from God (ἄνθρωπον ὃς τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα ἣν ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ). Also with the specific mimetic activity of sending, there is a mimetic chain from the Father as an example for the Son, who in turn is an example for his followers to imitate. The mission of Jesus, to carry out the Father’s work, is the mimetic basis for the disciples’ mission to continue the divine work (17:18; 20:21). Thus, the fundamental attributes and activities that characterize the Father–Son relationship are extended or made available to people by means of mimesis. In other words, mimesis is instrumental for the God–human relationship. I will go further, suggesting that the Son–Father mimesis takes place for the sake of people. All the Son’s mimetic activities benefit people. The Son imitates the

Divine Mimesis

81

Father in giving life, speaking the truth, loving, sending into the world and sharing his honour in order to reveal God to people. Mimesis mediates the things of God to people through Jesus. Mimesis is a device or mechanism for mediating the divine reality of the world above to the world below. The Son–Father mimesis is, therefore, for the sake of people because through this mimesis the Son reveals the Father to the world and through this mimesis people can experience the divine life, love, truth and so on. Whereas reciprocity is exclusive and refers to a mutual exchange of goods and services between the benefactor and the recipient, mimesis is inclusive in that goods or benefits are passed down a mimetic chain from the originator to the imitator-recipient to the recipient. Hence, an imitator is a mediator. Both reciprocity and mimesis are to be found within the Johannine divine family. For example, there is a perpetual, reciprocal flow of life, love, truth and honour between the Father and Son, which is then extended to believers through the Son’s mimesis of the Father. Mimesis thus appears to be an essential tool or mechanism in mediation. Jesus is the mediator between God and humanity, between the inaccessible realm above and the realm below, and he functions as such through mimesis. People can know and experience the divine reality through Jesus’ mediatory-mimetic activities. Mimesis, therefore, is instrumental in revealing the divine reality to people and making it tangible or accessible to them. It is as the imitator of God that Jesus is also the revealer of God. The task in this chapter was not simply to note a Son–Father mimesis (we have already done this in Chapter 2), but to unpack it and show how mimesis affects our understanding of the relationship between the Father and Son. Jesus’ defence for his behaviour in 5:17 was viewed by his opponents as an outrageous claim to be on a par with God and to act on his behalf (5:18). While this claim was offensive to Jesus’ audience, Johannine readers can accept it when they recognize the concept of mimesis. In the verses following, Jesus explains that the Son does not act independently or on his own initiative; rather, the Father gives the example for the Son to follow. In imitating the Father, the Son actualizes the Father’s work on earth. As such, the Son needs no apologetic for what he does and says – he simply is the visible and audible manifestation of the Father himself. In the mimetic act, the Son unveils, on earth, the Father in heaven. The Son–Father mimesis thus impacts humanity. In imitating the Father, the Son opens up the heavenly realm and reveals the Father on earth so that people can ‘hear’ and ‘see’, that is experience, God for themselves. Jesus thus represents the invisible God on earth by means of mimesis. This divine filial mimesis is more about a creative, faithful interpretation and re-enactment of the Father’s words and works than a mechanical cloning. We must now examine the extent to which believers are expected to imitate Jesus (and God).

Chapter 4 The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

Based on the linguistic analysis in Chapter 2, I concluded that mimesis is a dominant concept in the Johannine literature. I then started to unpack the concept in Chapter 3, noting that the mimesis in the Godhead comprises a dominant Son– Father mimesis and a latent Spirit–Jesus mimesis. In this chapter, I will examine the prevalent believer–Jesus mimesis and occasional believer–God mimesis. Human– divine mimesis makes up the majority of mimetic occurrences in the Johannine literature so this chapter takes up the largest part of this book.

4.1 Conceptual Traces of Mimesis 4.1.1 Following Jesus Discipleship undoubtedly involves relationship (personal attachment to the teacher), loyalty (allegiance to the teacher) and learning (adherence to the teacher’s instruction).1 Hence, it would seem obvious that a disciple seeks to imitate (aspects of) the teacher. However, the question is whether the verbs ἀκολουθεῖν (‘to follow’) and μένειν (‘to remain’), which are central to John’s understanding of discipleship, suggest imitation. Discipleship is a major theme in John’s Gospel, where people commit to following Jesus and remaining with him. The act of ‘following Jesus’, expressed mainly by the verb ἀκολουθεῖν (nineteen occurrences in John), is demonstrated by a variety of people: the (twelve) disciples (1:37-40, 43; 18:15), the crowd (6:2; although it becomes clear that they are fickle (6:26, 36)), and believers in general (8:12; 10:4-5, 27; 12:26).2 The image of a person coming ‘after/behind’ (ὀπίσω) Jesus is synonymous with the concept of following him as 6:66 indicates, although there it is used negatively to say that many disciples ‘withdrew from

1. Jan A. Du Rand, ‘Perspectives on Johannine Discipleship according to the Farewell Discourses’, Neotestamentica 25 (1991): 314; Michael J. Wilkins, Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 11–13, 93. 2. Discipleship for the original disciples involved both a literal following (to travel with Jesus) and a figurative following (to show allegiance to Jesus and his teachings). Although the literal following is no longer possible for later disciples, the figurative following is nevertheless as real as with the original disciples.

84

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

following in the wake of Jesus’ – they defected – when they learnt of the demands of discipleship. Important for our study is to determine whether the Johannine concept of discipleship includes the idea of emulating Jesus in order to become like him, that is, mimesis.3 I will not inspect the term μαθητής (‘disciple’, ‘learner’, ‘apprentice’, ‘adherent’) although it occurs frequently in John’s Gospel (seventyeight occurrences), because it is not explained.4 I will first examine the concept of following Jesus and look at the idea of remaining with Jesus in the next section. I start with an outline of the main scholarly positions. In the 1960s, some wide-ranging studies on mimesis explored whether following Jesus has mimetic connotations (see Section 1.1.1). Tinsley, for example, holds that ‘following Jesus’ means imitating him. He argues that the Old Testament idea of Israel imitating God by following or walking in his ways has a trajectory into the New Testament in the discipleship language of following Jesus.5 Regarding John’s Gospel, Tinsley claims that ἀκολουθεῖν ‘indicates at one and the same time the actual physical historical accompanying and the spiritual and ethical mimesis’.6 De Boer, however, disagrees with Tinsley that ‘to walk in God’s ways’ suggests imitating God’s actions and conduct; rather, God’s ways are the ways that God has prescribed for people and walking in God’s ways is akin to keeping his commandments.7 Nevertheless, de Boer admits that the concept of ‘following Jesus’ in the Gospels has connotations of imitation.8 Schulz and Betz, who each examine the continuity between the notion of ‘following Jesus’ in the Gospels and that of imitation in Paul, argue that despite the strong philological and conceptual discontinuity, there is some theological-hermeneutical continuity in that both notions represent a single concept of discipleship.9 Larsson argues that imitation is part of following and hence should be subsumed under discipleship.10 3. While Du Rand concludes that discipleship is a ‘form of imitatio Christi’, he does not establish or explain this idea (‘Perspectives on Johannine Discipleship’, 323). Similarly, van der Merwe claims that ἀκολουθεῖν contributes to the Johannine imitatio Christi, but he does not establish his case, and views ‘following Jesus’ merely in terms of the disciples continuing and participating in Jesus’ mission (‘Imitatio Christi’, 133–34). In contrast, Gerhard Kittel views ἀκολουθεῖν as participation rather than imitation (‘ἀκολουθέω’, TDNT 1:214). Karl H. Rengstorf also concludes that imitation was not part of discipleship of Jesus (‘μανθάνω’, TDNT 4:441–55). Likewise, Hengel concludes that ‘following after him [Jesus] did not mean imitating individual actions of his’ (Charismatic Leader, 53). 4. For the concept of μαθητής in early Judaism, see Wilkins, Discipleship, ch. 3. 5. Tinsley, Imitation of God, esp. chs. 3–5. 6. Ibid., 127 (original emphasis). 7. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 33–38. 8. Ibid., 50–54. 9. Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 332–35; Betz, Nachfolge und Nachahmung, 3, 42–43, 186–89. Betz, for example, contends that the Johannine idea of imitation is expressed by ἀκολουθεῖν (and καθώς) (Ibid., 40 n. 3, 42–43). See also Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 332–34. 10. Larsson, Christus als Vorbild, 17.

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

85

More recently, Kwon, Hawthorne, Copan, Milchner and Burridge hold similar positions to Larsson’s in that imitation is part of following Jesus or discipleship (see Section 1.1.5).11 Walter Ong holds a radically different view: Despite all the talk over many centuries concerning the ‘imitation of Christ’, the fact is that in the Gospel accounts Jesus never says to anyone that they should ‘imitate’ him. He does say, over and over again, ‘Follow me.’ The imitation theme is made explicit in the text of Paul’s letters, but not as the words of Jesus.12

Ong goes as far as saying that ‘imitation and following contrast in significant ways’.13 Ong is right that Jesus never uttered the words ‘imitate me’ but wrong in implying that Jesus never referred to the concept of imitating him. There are ways other than just using a literal term to evoke a concept, and our linguistic analysis in Chapter 2 showed that John refers to the concept of imitating Jesus without mentioning the lexeme μιμεῖσθαι. In sum, some hold that ‘following Jesus’ (in the Gospels) is synonymous (Tinsley) or continuous with ‘imitating Jesus’ (in Paul) (Schulz, Betz, but only at a theological level). Others contend that ‘imitating Jesus’ falls within the gamut of ‘following Jesus’ (Larsson, Kwon, Hawthorne, Copan, Milchner, Burridge) or vice versa, that the language of ‘following Jesus’ is part of the concept of ‘imitating Jesus’ (de Boer). Differently, Ong states that following Jesus and imitating him are incompatible concepts. I now turn to John’s Gospel to examine the evidence. De Boer’s analysis of ἀκολουθεῖν is helpful. He argues that the language of ‘following Jesus’ in the Gospels has connotations of imitation.14 While we cannot assume that the verb ἀκολουθεῖν (‘to follow’) means ‘to imitate’, in the Jewish educational system ‘to follow’ meant ‘learning the way of life of the master, and of making that way of life his own’.15 When it comes to the expression ‘following 11. Kwon, Christ as Example, 60–61; Hawthorne, ‘Imitation of Christ’, 165–66; Copan, ‘Μαθητής and Μιμητής’, 323; Milchner, Nachfolge Jesu, 12; Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 74. See also Hood, Imitating God, 66, 72–73. Ernest Best argues that while the concept of imitation was absent from the teaching of the historical Jesus, Mark’s understanding of ‘following Jesus’ gradually brought an element of imitation into the concept of discipleship (Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark, JSNTSup 4 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 36–41; Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 13–16). While Daniel Patte advocates the view of (Matthean) discipleship as imitation, he does not link it to ‘following’ (The Challenge of Discipleship: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 86–117). 12. Walter J. Ong, ‘Mimesis and the Following of Christ’, Religion and Literature 26.2 (1994): 73 (author’s emphasis). 13. Ong, ‘Mimesis’, 74 (emphasis added). 14. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 51–54. 15. Ibid., 51. For the concept of imitation in ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman education (mimetic learning), see de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 25–26, 42–44; Wilkins, Discipleship,

86

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Jesus’, there is an additional aspect, namely participation in his life and fate (e.g. John 12:25-26), which would require a measure of imitation.16 Indeed, in John’s Gospel the disciples’ following Jesus is not just about going where he goes but also observing him (cf. 1:37-39) and absorbing his life (6:66 shows that some could or would no longer follow Jesus because of his teaching). According to de Boer, John 13:36-38 and 21:18-19 indicate that Peter’s following of Jesus has a mimetic dimension – Peter will ‘follow’ (i.e. imitate) Jesus in laying down his life for his master. On the one hand, he agrees with Kittel that ‘following Jesus’ is no ‘Vorbild nachahmende imitatio’; on the other, he contends that following Jesus ‘can upon occasion lead to situations and circumstances which most strikingly resemble those which Christ experienced. . . . The matter of imitation is not foreign to such a situation.’17 De Boer concludes that although ‘the idea of imitation is not to be found in the expression “following Jesus” as such . . . this expression portrays a situation in which imitation not only very likely will develop, but where it must develop’.18 I agree with de Boer that ‘following Jesus’ does not denote imitation, but I would go further and suggest that the expression does not even imply imitation but can only lead to imitation. Take 21:18-19, for example, these verses simply express the idea that Peter’s following Jesus effects or leads to imitating Jesus in laying down his life for his master. That is, while Peter’s following Jesus in itself does not amount to imitation, it brings him to a position where he can imitate Jesus. Negatively, in John 6, the crowd follows Jesus for the wrong reasons (6:2, 22-27, 36), and many disciples cease to follow Jesus when they grasp what it entails (6:60-66), so in neither case does following imply or result in imitation. I therefore contend that no explicit linguistic expression ties ἀκολουθεῖν to mimesis; instead, there are only conceptual traces of mimesis. Where Jesus gives an example for his disciples to imitate, for example in the footwashing and the love command (see Sections 4.2 and 4.3, respectively), there is no mention of the verb ἀκολουθεῖν. The only exception perhaps is 12:26: ἐὰν ἐμοί τις διακονῇ, ἐμοὶ ἀκολουθείτω, καὶ ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται. If someone wishes to serve me, he must follow me, and where I am, there my servant will also be.

Although Jesus does not demonstrate any action here that his followers must imitate, there is a sense of mimesis that believers will be where Jesus is because chs. 1–3; van der Watt, Family of the King, 273–79; Andrea Wilson Nightingale, ‘Liberal Education in Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics’, in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity, ed. Yun Lee Too (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 136–39; Sylvia Wilkey Collinson, Making Disciples: The Significance of Jesus’ Educational Methods for Today’s Church, PTM (Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004), 12–23; Witmer, Divine Instruction, 97–98. 16. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 52. 17. Ibid., 53–54. 18. Ibid., 54.

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

87

they follow Jesus. Thus, following Jesus arguably has a mimetic aspect in that the believer goes where Jesus goes. Strictly speaking, however, the mimetic aspect is connected to the verb εἶναι in 12:26b rather than ἀκολουθεῖν in 12:26a. That is, the believer arrives at the same place as Jesus (mimesis) as the result of following him (see Section 4.4 for the mimetic concept ‘to be where Jesus is’). Mimesis thus seems to be an effect of following. Nowhere in John’s Gospel does Jesus hold up an example of following and tell his disciples to imitate it. Therefore, it appears that following Jesus facilitates mimesis. Instead of arguing that following Jesus means imitating him, I suggest that believers follow Jesus in order to imitate him. It is as people follow Jesus that they observe and imitate him. I therefore conclude that ἀκολουθεῖν is not directly linked to mimesis; rather, mimesis is the goal of following Jesus. In other words, ἀκολουθεῖν does not have denotations (contra Tinsley, Schulz and Betz) or connotations (contra de Boer, Larsson) of mimesis. Rather, ἀκολουθεῖν is only conceptually linked to mimesis in so far as following Jesus as a disciple facilitates imitating him.19 4.1.2 Remaining with Jesus When it comes to the concept of remaining with or abiding in Jesus, there is marginally more evidence in John’s Gospel that μένειν has mimetic connotations. The verb μένειν is logically related to ἀκολουθεῖν in that following Jesus implies remaining with or in him.20 Of the sixty-seven occurrences of μένειν in the Johannine literature, only three hint at mimesis – John 15:4; 15:10 and 1 John 2:6.21 The καθώς . . . οὕτως construction in 15:4 perhaps indicates mimesis: Just as (καθώς) a branch can only bear fruit when it abides in the vine, so (οὕτως) the disciples can only bear fruit when they abide in Jesus. Jesus exhorts the disciples to observe the vine and its branches, and to ‘imitate’ the branches in abiding, as it were, in order to be fruitful. Even so, this is not an occurrence of the believer–Jesus 19. Contra Ong, who contrasts imitation and following because he views imitation as mechanical replication, whereas following is a venturesome participation (‘Mimesis’, 74–75). For a corrective that John does not hold such a view of mimesis, see Section 4.2. While Friedrich W. Horn does not limit mimesis in the New Testament to the literal terms, he arguably puts too many ideas into the concept, including following and correspondence (‘Mimetische Ethik im Neuen Testament’, in Volp, Horn and Zimmermann, Metapher– Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie, 200). 20. Only in 1:37-40 are ἀκολουθεῖν and μένειν directly related. One could suggest that the disciples ‘imitated’ Jesus in 1:39 when they stayed (ἔμειναν) where Jesus was staying (μένει), but this would be pedantly. The disciples simply stayed with Jesus in the same place. If μένειν here had denoted mimesis, the phrase καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτῷ ἔμειναν in 1:39b would have had the meaning ‘they were also staying with him’, which cannot be the case because that would have required an earlier temporal participle clause (‘when they came and saw where he was staying’) whereas two aorist verbs are used. 21. John 6:56 refers to mutual indwelling (the believer remaining in Jesus and vice versa) rather than the believer imitating Jesus (cf. 1 John 3:24; 4:13, 15-16).

88

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

mimesis. Again, in 15:10, we find the comparative conjunction καθώς (but now without the correlative οὕτως) to indicate the mimetic idea that just as (καθώς) Jesus has been obedient and abides in the Father’s love, so the disciples will abide in Jesus’ love when they are obedient. Jesus’ obedience to the Father (and the corollary aspect of abiding in the Father’s love) is the example for the disciples to imitate.22 In 1 John 2:6, the imperative to imitate Jesus’ way of life (the mimesis is indicated by a καθώς . . . καί construction) applies to those who claim to abide in Jesus (ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν). In both John 15:10 and 1 John 2:6, the primary objects for imitation are Jesus’ obedience and Jesus’ way of life, rather than remaining with him. Therefore, just as following Jesus should inspire imitation, the idea here also is that remaining with Jesus should result in imitating him. 4.1.3 Filial Mimesis The most poignant exchange in the conflict between Jesus and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (‘the Jews’ or Judeans) is to be found in 8:12-59, with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι alleging that Jesus is demon possessed (8:48) and Jesus calling his opponents children of the devil (8:44).23 Notwithstanding the harsh allegations, the conflict between Jesus and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is a ‘family’ debate – an intra-Jewish dispute about family and identity – and 8:39-47 speaks of the existence of two mutually exclusive families, with different fathers. In this section, I will argue that Jesus speaks of a filial mimesis where οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι imitate a different father from the one they claim to. The first hint of mimesis may be seen in 8:38. Jesus’ claim in 8:38a that he speaks of what he has seen in the Father’s presence echoes the mimetic pattern revealed in 5:19-20 (see Section 3.1.2). We noted that these verses show the Son’s complete dependence on the Father and the Father’s complete revelation to the Son, where the Son observes what the Father is doing and imitates him. Elsewhere we learnt that Jesus speaks nothing apart from the very words of the Father (8:26, 28, 38; 12:49-50; 14:24; 15:15). In short, Jesus emulates the Father in what he does and speaks. If this mimetic idea lies behind Jesus’ claim in 8:38a, then Jesus’ exhortation in 8:38b could also echo the concept of mimesis: ‘Therefore, you should also do what you have heard from the Father.’24 In which case, just as Jesus mimics the 22. Similarly, Segovia states that the disciples’ relationship with Jesus is patterned after, and grounded in, Jesus’ relationship with the Father (Farewell of the Word, 151–52). 23. The term Ἰουδαῖοι refers to a subset of the Jewish people in Jesus’ time, namely an overtly religious group of Torah- and temple-loyalists, found especially in Judaea (Cornelis Bennema, ‘The Identity and Composition of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in the Gospel of John’, TynBul 60 (2009): 239–63). While the translation of Ἰουδαῖοι as ‘Judaeans’ or ‘Jews’ is a difficult scholarly debate (see, most recently, David M. Miller, ‘Ethnicity, Religion and the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient “Judaism”’, CurBR 12 (2014): 216–65 (esp. 255–59)), this does not affect our argument. 24. The presence of the conjunction οὖν indicates that καὶ here functions as an adverb (‘also’) rather than a coordinate conjunction (‘and’). The textual variant ὑμῶν after τοῦ πατρός is most probably a scribal refinement to show a contrast between God as the father

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

89

Father, so also οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι should imitate the Father.25 The phrase ‘what you have heard from the Father’ may allude to Jesus’ teaching being the very words of God (cf. 3:34; 8:26, 28). Hence, by hearing Jesus’ words they hear God’s words (6:45).26 In effect, the Father is the paradigmatic example for both Jesus and οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. The difference is that while Jesus can observe the Father directly and imitate him, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι must ‘observe’ the Father through Jesus’ teaching and pattern their behaviour accordingly. It soon becomes clear, however, that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι imitate another father (8:39-41). When οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι assert that Abraham is their father, Jesus responds by saying that if this were the case their conduct would show it (8:39). The ‘if you were . . . you would do’ construction (it is repeated in 8:42) illustrates that identity calls for corresponding behaviour.27 As it is, their conduct resembles that of a different father (8:40-41a).28 Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι then claim that God is their Father (8:41b). Again, Jesus points out that their behaviour does not show they belong to God’s family (8:42). On the contrary, their behaviour suggests they are children of the devil and choose (θέλειν) to emulate their father (8:44).29 Indeed, the immediate context shows that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι imitate their father the devil: like the devil, they sin (8:24; cf. 1 John 3:8), lie (8:33,30 44, 55), seek to kill (8:37, 40, 44, 59) and do not accept the of Jesus and the devil as the father of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, but this contrast is only introduced in 8:41 (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 193). Besides, it would be odd for Jesus to exhort οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι to imitate the devil (even though 8:44 indicates that this is what they are doing). 25. See also Brant, John, 145. 26. Similarly, based on 6:45, Witmer shows how Jesus’ teaching perfectly mediates God’s word to people (Divine Instruction, 94–106). 27. Although only 8:42 is a second-class condition (contrary to fact), 8:40 shows that the first-class condition in 8:39 is also contrary to fact. It is hence not surprising that some textual variants have a second-class condition in 8:39. See also Michaels, Gospel of John, 512. For the Johannine dialectic between identity and behaviour, see Section 5.2. 28. John 8:39-41a expands 8:37, where Jesus picks up on the earlier claim of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι in 8:33 that they are Abraham’s descendants (σπέρμα). Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι thus introduce the topic of father/ancestor and family first. Jesus then explains that in (God’s) household (οἰκία) there is no permanent place for the δοῦλός τῆς ἁμαρτίας, that is, the sinner and by implication, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι; only the υἱός has a lasting residence (8:34-35). Only when the υἱός (Jesus) liberates οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι will they be free and able to enjoy God’s family membership (8:36). Jesus, however, knows the reality; his liberating word has not made headway (χωρεῖν) among οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (8:37). Acknowledging their Abrahamic lineage, Jesus notes that this does not correspond with their murderous behaviour, so he exhorts them to line up their behaviour with what they hear from the Father – through his teaching (8:37-38, echoing 6:45). 29. Θέλειν here denotes a volitional act motivated either by desire (to wish, to want) or resolve (to will, to intend). 30. The claim of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι that they have never been slaves to anyone (in reply to Jesus’ invitation to experience the freedom he can provide) is a lie because they have been enslaved for centuries by the Persians, the Greeks and now the Romans. Jesus does not expose their lie/ignorance but focuses on their primary enslavement – to sin (8:34).

90

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

truth (8:44-46).31 True followers of Jesus are expected to imitate his father – God (cf. 8:38b).32 While Jesus agrees that οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι do what their father does (ποιεῖτε τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν; 8:41), the scandal is that their father is neither Abraham nor God (as they claim) but the devil (8:44). Their ‘works’ (ἔργα), that is their behaviour, show whom they imitate. Although 8:39 does not clarify what Abraham’s ἔργα consist of, the New Testament presents his faith (πιστεύειν τῷ θεῷ (Gen 15:6 LXX)) as the paradigmatic response to God (see e.g. Rom 4:3, 22; Gal 3:6; Heb 11:8, 17; Jas 2:23).33 This corresponds with 6:28-29 where Jesus explains to the crowd that the ἔργον of God consists of believing in him (πιστεύειν εἰς ὃν ἀπέστει λεν ἐκεῖνος). Again, in 8:42, Jesus indicates that loving him also constitutes doing God’s ἔργον. Thus, the ἔργα of Abraham and the ἔργον that God requires, coincide in the concept of πιστεύειν. To believe in God, which for John means to believe in Jesus, is the one ἔργον that proves family affinity.34 The ἔργα of the devil, however, consists of killing and lying (8:44). By imitating the devil’s ἔργα, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι show that they are ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου (8:44) and not ἐκ θεοῦ (8:47b). Conversely, those who are ἐκ θεοῦ (believers) hear God’s words and do his ἔργα (cf. 8:38b, 47a). Jesus goes on to invite his followers to participate with him in doing the Father’s ἔργα (9:4),35 but in 14:12 he indicates that they will even

31. Judas also imitates the devil in that he lies (about his concern for the poor; 12:5-6), steals (money from the common purse; 12:6), and is murderous (he plays an important role in the killing of Jesus by facilitating Jesus’ arrest). Brant notes the following mimetic syllogism: ‘A son imitates his father. You are doing what the devil does by seeking to kill me. Therefore, the devil is your father.’ (John, 146). 32. Cf. Tinsley, Imitation of God, 124. See also Jan van der Watt, who explains against the backdrop of ancient education that children did what their father did (‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, 424–28). 33. See also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 442 n. 6; Michaels, Gospel of John, 513 n. 58; Maarten J.J. Menken, ‘Genesis in John’s Gospel’, in idem, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays, CBET 77 (Leuven: Peeters, 2015), 142–43. Differently, Neyrey contends that Abraham’s ἔργα refers to showing hospitality to divine messengers (Gen 18:1-8) (Gospel of John, 161). 34. For a detailed discussion of τὰ ἔργα (τοῦ θεοῦ), see Weyer-Menkhoff, Ethik des Johannesevangeliums, ch. 3, or briefer, idem, ‘The Response of Jesus: Ethics in John by Considering Scripture as Work of God’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 160–66. 35. Jesus does not simply carry out the work that the Father has assigned to him (4:34; 17:4; etc.), his work is identical to the Father’s in that he imitates what the Father does (5:17, 19; cf. 5:36). Even though 5:17 contains no explicit mimetic expression – it is unclear whether καί functions as an adverb (‘also’) or conjunction (‘and’) – Jesus’ assertion hints at mimesis because the idea seems to be that just as the Father is working, Jesus is also working. Nevertheless, when Jesus elaborates in 5:19, he clearly indicates mimesis. Ensor has also recognized the mimetic aspect in Jesus’ doing the Father’s work (Jesus and His ‘Works’, 282–84).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

91

imitate him in such (miraculous) works: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει (the singular adverbial καί here denotes mimesis). 4.1.4 Conclusion We noted that although some occurrences of ἀκολουθεῖν and μένειν arguably allude to mimesis, it would not be judicious to force our case. I conclude that ἀκολουθεῖν and μένειν only hint at mimesis rather than having clear mimetic connotations. Similarly, a good case can be made that John 8 indicates the concept of family mimesis, but I conclude that it lies beneath the surface. This means that we must look elsewhere if we wish to speak more confidently of a believer–Jesus mimesis in the Johannine writings.

4.2 The Footwashing – Cloning or Creative Articulation? The strongest, most explicit cases of the believer–Jesus mimesis are found in John 13. We will first examine the mimesis in the footwashing episode, and in Section 4.3, we will explore the mimetic love command. The focus of this section is Jesus’ mimetic imperative to his disciples in John 13:15: ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε. For I gave you an example, that you also should do just as I have done to you.

The footwashing scene in John 13 is a familiar and cherished event for the church and academy alike.36 Sermons based on the passage always stress the need for humble service and some churches have implemented literal enactments of the footwashing as a spiritual discipline. Although the academy has examined the footwashing pericope extensively, the focus has been on 13:1-11 and the topic of mimesis has received little consideration.37 In the following examination, I  will 36. Outlining a biblical theology of imitation, it is surprising that Jason Hood does not include the Johannine footwashing in his Imitating God. 37. For the various interpretations of the footwashing, see John Christopher Thomas, Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community, JSNTSup 61 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991), 11–17. For the historical plausibility that Jesus washed the disciples’ feet, see Jamie Clark-Soles, ‘John 13: Of Footwashing and History’, in John, Jesus, and History. Vol. 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel, ed. Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009), 255–69; Richard Bauckham, ‘Did Jesus Wash His Disciples’ Feet?’, in idem, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 203–6. For precedents of the footwashing in the Old Testament (Gen 18:4; Exod 30:19; Lev 1:9) and Jewish literature, see Frédéric Manns, L’Evangile de Jean à la Lumière du Judaïsme, SBFA 33 (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1991), 330–33.

92

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

stress the cognitive and creative aspects of mimesis and in so doing mediate between two conflicting views. Scholars are divided on whether the mimetic imperative in 13:15 calls for a literal duplication of the footwashing or is a directive to humble (loving) service. Of the proponents of the first view, Christopher Thomas has offered the most extensive case but it has its weaknesses.38 And while most scholars take the latter view, they rarely substantiate their position or explain the mechanics of the mimesis.39 They do not ask if, perhaps, Jesus did intend the exact replication of the footwashing. 38. Thomas, Footwashing, 110, 128. Other supporters of a literal replication of the footwashing (but with symbolic meaning) are: Herold Weiss, ‘Footwashing in the Johannine Community’, NovT 21 (1979): 298–325 (to prepare for potential martyrdom); Christoph Niemand, Die Fusswaschungserzählung des Johannesevangeliums: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entstehung und Überlieferung im Christentum, SA 114 (Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1993), 383–86, 411 (to initiate and welcome John the Baptist’s disciples into the Johannine community); Keener, Gospel of John, 902–4 (sacrificial love and service for one another); Mary L. Coloe, ‘Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot Washing in John 13’, CBQ 66 (2004): 411–15 (to welcome believers into God’s family); van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 167–74 (to express unreserved love for one another during the habitual sharing of meals); idem, ‘Social Redefinition’, 123–27; Bauckham, ‘Did Jesus Wash’, 195; Jerome H. Neyrey, ‘The Foot Washing in John 13:6-11: Transformation Ritual or Ceremony’, in idem, The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 366–67 (to express hospitality at a meal and confirm roles and statuses); Michaels, Gospel of John, 735 (to show humble service). L. William Countryman considers a literal fulfilment a possibility (The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 88). 39. For example, in a dissertation dedicated to the Johannine footwashing, Jean Owanga-Welo does not go further regarding 13:12-15 than stating, ‘The disciples are told that what Jesus did is an example [of humility] for them to follow’ (‘The Function and Meaning of the Footwashing in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Structural Approach’ (PhD diss., Emory University, 1980), 250). Scholarship supporting this view includes Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 300; Georg Richter, ‘Die Fußwaschung Joh 13,1-20’, MTZ 16 (1965): 13–26; F.-M. Braun, Jean le Théologien: Sa Théologie. Le Mystère de JésusChrist (Paris: Gabalda, 1966), 188; James D.G. Dunn, ‘The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet in John 13:1-20’, ZNW 61 (1970): 249; Sandra M. Schneiders, ‘The Foot Washing (John 13:1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics’, CBQ 43 (1981): 88; Arland J. Hultgren, ‘The Johannine Footwashing (13.1-11) as Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality’, NTS 28 (1982): 540; Fernando F. Segovia, ‘John 13:1-20, The Footwashing in the Johannine Tradition’, ZNW 73 (1982): 45–46; Francis J. Moloney, ‘A Sacramental Reading of John 13:1-38’, CBQ 53 (1991): 244–45, 254 (to love unto death); R. Alan Culpepper, ‘The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13’, Semeia 53 (1991): 141–44 (to imitate Jesus’ virtuous death); Jörg Augenstein, Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen, BWANT 134 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993), 35; Jean Zumstein, ‘Le Lavement des Pieds (Jean 13,120): Un Exemple de la Conception Johannique du Puvoir’, RTP 132 (2000): 354; Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 300–301, 343–44 (to love unto death and to provide loving service); Jörg

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

93

The central question, therefore, is: Did Jesus by his mimetic imperative intend or require that the disciples literally replicate the act of footwashing or that they creatively express the idea underlying the footwashing? I will first examine John 13:4-5, 12-17 and present a four-stage mimetic model (Section 4.2.1). Based on this model and support from the broader Johannine literature, I will show that the Johannine concept of mimesis is primarily about faithful expression rather than exact replication, although the latter may be a valid articulation of the former (Section 4.2.2). There are good reasons for viewing John 13 as being significant when studying the concept of mimesis. First, apart from the hints at mimesis in 6:57 and 12:26, Jesus’ first explicit mimetic imperative to the disciples is found in 13:14-15. Second, this mimetic imperative is embedded in the pericope 13:1-17/20, which vividly describes the action that needs imitation (13:4-12), and gives a lengthy explanation for why the disciples must imitate Jesus’ example (13:13-14, 16). Third, 13:4-17 contains significant mimetic language: (i) the adverbial use of καί, the imperatival force of ὀφείλειν and the repetition of the verb νίπτειν in 13:14 create a mimetic imperative; (ii) the only occurrence of the term ὑπόδειγμα (‘example, model, pattern’) in the Johannine literature, and its inherent potential to express mimesis, is in 13:15;40 (iii) 13:15 contains one of the most commonly occurring Johannine mimetic expressions, the comparative conjunction καθώς in the protasis with the correlative καί in the apodosis (see category 3 in Section 2.2). 4.2.1 The Mimetic Model in John 13 Structurally, the footwashing pericope in John 13 consists of two parts, each conveying a distinct but related meaning: in 13:1-11 Jesus speaks of the disciples’ spiritual cleansing that he will complete for them on the cross (soteriology), whereas in 13:12-17/20 Jesus explains the footwashing in terms of humble, loving service that needs ongoing repetition (ethics).41 I shall focus on 13:4-5, 12-17, Frey, ‘Love-Relations in the Fourth Gospel: Establishing a Semantic Network’, in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation, ed. G. van Belle, M. Labahn and P. Maritz, BETL 223 (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 192; idem, ‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 197. Most commentators gloss over the topic, simply saying that Jesus set an example of humble service that believers must follow. 40. The partially synonymous term τύπος, which can denote a pattern to be copied or a model of behaviour to be imitated (esp. in Paul), is used only in John 20:25 to denote a visible impression – a scar. 41. It is well-recognized that the verbs θεῖναι and λαβεῖν in 13:4, 12, used to describe Jesus’ taking off and putting on his clothes, echo 10:18 where Jesus speaks of his ability to lay down and pick up his life of his own accord – which, of course, he does on the cross and in the resurrection. That the footwashing is also an act of love is clear from 13:1 (ἀγαπήσας τοὺς ἰδίους τοὺς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἰς τέλος ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς), that is, Jesus was going to show the disciples the extent of his love – proleptically in what he was going to do on the cross (13:6-11) and in humble service (13:12-17). The expression εἰς τέλος has both a temporal and qualitative sense – Jesus loves his own till ‘the end’ and ‘consummately’ (Francis J. Moloney,

94

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

which is the relevant section for the Johannine concept of mimesis, to outline a four-stage model.42 1. Showing. The concrete act of footwashing is described in 13:4-12a, which has a chiastic structure:43 A [v. 4] ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου B καὶ τίθησιν τὰ ἱμάτια καὶ λαβὼν λέντιον διέζωσεν ἑαυτόν· C [v. 5] εἶτα βάλλει ὕδωρ εἰς τὸν νιπτῆρα καὶ ἤρξατο νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν καὶ ἐκμάσσειν τῷ λεντίῳ ᾧ ἦν διεζωσμένος. D [vv. 6-11] Jesus’ interaction with Peter C’ [v. 12a] Ὅτε οὖν ἔνιψεν τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν B’ [καὶ] ἔλαβεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ A’ καὶ ἀνέπεσεν πάλιν

Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 105). For the connection between 13:1-11 and 13:12-20, see further Thomas, Footwashing, 116–25; Niemand, Fusswaschungserzählung, ch. 2; or the earlier discussion in Dunn, ‘Washing’, 247–49. Marianne Meye Thompson explores the soteriological and ethical dimensions of the footwashing to advance the argument that John 13 presents an incident of human resistance to divine love, but her essay does not assist our investigation into mimesis (‘“His Own Received Him Not”: Jesus Washes the Feet of His Disciples’, in The Art of Reading Scriptures, ed. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2003), 258–73). Tolmie echoes the concern of Bultmann (Gospel of John, 476) and Barrett (Gospel according to St. John, 443) that if the second interpretation of the footwashing in 13:12-17 (the example of new life) is separated from the first interpretation in 13:6-11 (the redemptive work of Christ), the second interpretation might be reduced to a mere imitation of Christ (Jesus’ Farewell, 71 n. 28). However, Tolmie’s concern is unnecessary here; our study will show that John never intended for the believers’ mimetic behaviour to be a mere copying of Jesus. 42. Zumstein argues that 13:4-5, 12-17 constitutes the oldest tradition of the footwashing pericope, with 13:6-11 being added later (‘Lavement des Pieds’, 352–55). See also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 462; Udo Schnelle, Das Evangelium nach Johannes, ThHK 4, 4th ed. (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009), 237. Contra Richter, ‘Fußwaschung’, 19–24; Hartwig Thyen, ‘Johannes 13 und die “Kirchliche Redaktion” des vierten Evangeliums’, in idem, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum, WUNT 214 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 29–41. For the most comprehensive treatment of the tradition and redaction history of 13:1-20, see Niemand, Fusswaschungserzählung, 81–256 (he contends that 13:6-10 is an older tradition than 13:12-20 and that within each tradition various redactions occurred; see also Brown, Gospel according to John, 2:562). For a different structure, see Frédéric Manns, ‘Le lavement des pieds: Essai sur la structure et la signification de Jean 13’, RSR 55.3 (1981): 149–69; Michal Wojciechowski, ‘La Source de Jean 13.1-20’, NTS 34 (1988): 135–41. Thomas considers 13:1-20 a literary unit and is not preoccupied with the redaction history of the pericope (Footwashing, 125). 43. John 13:12b-17 also constitutes a chiasm, bracketed by the verbs γινώσκειν/εἰδέναι and ποιεῖν in 13:12b and 13:17, with 13:15 as the centre, and 13:13-14 corresponding to 13:16 (see also Niemand, Fusswaschungserzählung, 120–21).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

95

Setting aside the meaning of the footwashing as spiritual cleansing in 13:6-11, the significance of the bookends 13:4-5 and 13:12a for our understanding of Johannine mimesis is that these verses vividly describe the movements of Jesus. The passage begins with three successive actions (Jesus gets up from the table, takes off his outer garment and washes the disciples’ feet) and ends in reverse order (having washed the disciples’ feet, he puts on his outer garment and reclines again at the table). The vivid account of Jesus’ actions builds up to the mimetic imperative that follows in 13:14-15, suggesting that one can only imitate what is observed first. In other words, showing is the basis for mimesis. Instead of telling the disciples that they should wash one another’s feet, Jesus demonstrates what needs imitation. This idea is not new. In fact, Jesus imitates the Father’s method: just as the Father showed Jesus what to do (5:19-20), so Jesus shows the disciples what they must do. This implies that imitation requires or presupposes dependence – the imitator depends on the one who shows what needs imitation. Just as Jesus does nothing of his own accord (5:19), so the disciples are (or should be) utterly dependent on Jesus (χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν (15:5)). Mimesis is therefore at its heart a relational concept. 2. Understanding. It is revealing that when Jesus returns to the table after washing his disciples’ feet he does not simply command his disciples to imitate his example. Instead, he asks in 13:12b, γινώσκετε τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν? Γινώσκειν here has the force of ‘to understand’. Hence, Jesus’ question constitutes a cognitive challenge for the disciples – have they understood what he did for them?44 Jesus indicates that what the disciples have seen (sensory perception) needs to be followed by understanding (cognitive perception).45 Thus, the disciples must interpret Jesus’ original act in order to imitate him. This is significant for our understanding of mimesis because it is the first hint that mimesis may not equal exact replication. If the latter was all Jesus expected from his disciples, he would simply have gone from showing them to telling them to do likewise, from observation to behaviour. Instead, Jesus expects his disciples to understand what he has done and why they

44. Although the interrogative pronoun τί can mean either ‘what’ or ‘why’, the former is probably in view in 13:12b. Even if 13:12b is read as an imperative, ‘Understand what I have done to you!’ (so Stare, ‘Ethics of Life’, 223), it does not affect our interpretation. For example, Léon-Dufour prefers to take 13:12b as an imperative: the disciples are urged to draw conclusions from what they have seen Jesus do (Évangile selon Jean, 3:35). Drawing attention to the use of ὑμῖν (both here and in 13:15), Bultmann remarks that Jesus’ exemplary action is not an abstract illustration but is performed for the disciples, that is, they have experienced Jesus’ loving service so that they can serve the other (Gospel of John, 474–75). 45. While the disciples would fully understand the first meaning of the footwashing later (13:7), that is, after Easter, they needed to understand its second meaning immediately (13:12b-17). Differently, Culy contends that Jesus’ declaration ‘I have called you friends’ in 15:15 sheds light on the question in 13:12b, showing that the footwashing was essentially an act of friendship, promoting equality between Jesus and the disciples (Echoes of Friendship, 141–43, 160–62).

96

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

must imitate him. In order to assist his disciples in their cognitive perception, Jesus provides in 13:(13-)14, 16 the rationale for the mimetic imperative in 13:15. These verses contain a threefold argumentum a maiore ad minus for why the disciples are not exempt from imitating Jesus: what the person of higher status (Lord/master, teacher, sender) has done, must also be done by the one of lower status (slaves, disciples, messengers).46 Hence, 13:14, 16 provides the motivational basis for the mimetic imperative in 13:15. 3. Doing. Sandwiched between the rationale in 13:14 and 13:16 is 13:15, the fulcrum of the passage: ὑπόδειγμα γὰρ ἔδωκα ὑμῖν ἵνα καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε. It contains one of the most commonly used Johannine mimetic expressions, the comparative conjunction καθώς in the protasis with the correlative καί in the apodosis (cf. 6:57; 13:34; 15:9; 17:18, 21; 20:21; 1 John 2:6; 4:17; see category 3 in Section 2.2).47 Whatever the precise meaning of 13:15 (I discuss this in the next section), it contains an ethical imperative from Jesus (ἵνα with the subjunctive here has the force of an imperative) and naturally involves a volitional act from the disciples – they must act in response to the imperative.48 Jesus explicitly states that he expects his followers to do for one another what he did for them. Besides, the question in 13:12b, ‘Do you understand what I have done to you?,’ and the prescribed actions in 13:14-15, ‘You ought to wash one another’s feet’ and ‘You should also do’, imply that the mimetic imperative must be expressed

46. The scandal of the footwashing lies in the reversal of role and status where ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος acts as, and identifies with, δοῦλος. Allegiance to this δοῦλος-κύριος then demands that οἱ μαθηταί must be δοῦλοί to one another too. The implication is that the disciples must adopt or partake in Jesus’ slave identity in the performance of mimesis (see also Thomas, Footwashing, 115–16). Andreas J. Köstenberger notes that ὑπόδειγμα is used in both Second Temple Judaism and Graeco-Roman antiquity to denote examples of various virtues, but where ‘Greek and Romans prized virtues such as courage and military prowess, Jesus exemplified humility, self-sacrifice, and love’ (John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 408). See also Bauckham, who explains that footwashing in antiquity was a servile task performed only by slaves – ‘the one thing that no one else would do’. Only in a household without slaves, guests washed their own feet, but it was certainly not a duty of the host (‘Did Jesus Wash’, 192). 47. See also Schenk, Lexikon zum Vierten Evangelium, 222–23. Contra Spohn, who contends that the footwashing episode serves analogical thinking rather than literally copying Jesus (Go and Do Likewise, 52). 48. In 13:14b, the adverbial use of καί, the imperatival force of ὀφείλειν and the repetition of the verb νίπτειν also create a mimetic imperative: ‘[If I have washed your feet], you must also wash one another’s feet.’ See also Klaus Scholtissek, who claims that Johannine ethics is responsive ethics (‘“Eine größere Liebe als diese hat niemand, als wenn einer sein Leben hingibt für seine Freunde” (Joh 15,13): Die hellenistische Freundschaftsethik und das Johannesevangelium’, in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive, ed. Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle, WUNT 175 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 436–37).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

97

by a tangible action (cf. 1 John 3:18). Mimesis usually involves action: something is visibly shown which is then repeated in a similar, concrete act. 4. Being. According to 13:17, understanding should result in doing as well as being: εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε, μακάριοί ἐστε ἐὰν ποιῆτε αὐτά. From 13:12b-16 we have learnt that understanding should lead to and be a motivation for doing but 13:17 adds that, in turn, doing leads to a state of blessedness (μακάριος εἶναι). The term μακάριος, which ranges in meaning from ‘fortunate, happy’ to ‘privileged recipient of divine favour’ (at times even approaching the salvific Hebrew term ‫) ָׁשלוֹם‬, occurs only here and in 20:29. In both instances, blessing or happiness results from a volitional act (ποιεῖν and πιστεύειν respectively). Thomas contends that the blessing here refers to continued fellowship with Jesus.49 I suggest, however, that this ‘blessedness’ is synonymous with ‘joy’ (χαρά). For John, joy seems to refer to a ‘divine’ emotion related to God’s work in this world, in which people can share (3:29; 4:36; 8:56; 11:15; 14:28; 15:10-11; 16:22-24; 17:13; 20:20).50 Thus, in obeying Jesus’ mimetic imperative, believers will experience divine joy.51 To recapitulate, a close examination of John 13:4-17 shows a mimetic pattern or process that includes four stages: showing→knowing→doing→being. The concept of mimesis starts with sensory perception, namely the observation of a visible act that needs imitation (13:4-12a). Sensory perception is followed by cognitive perception, that is, understanding what needs imitation (13:12b) and the rationale 49. Thomas, Footwashing, 112. 50. John speaks of various people who are joyful when they see or hear Jesus: John the Baptizer (3:29), Abraham (8:56) and the disciples (20:20). In the Epistles, John rejoices in the fact that he is able to pass on his testimony and experience of Jesus to other believers, and he is full of joy when he hears that people in the church are obedient to Christ (1 John 1:4; 2 John 4, 12; 3 John 3-4). This is probably Jesus’ joy brought to completion in the believer (15:11; 17:13), the joy of participating in and fulfilling God’s mission in this world (4:36; 11:15), and the joy of people accepting and obeying Jesus’ teachings (15:11; 17:13-14). 51. Jesus’ promise of divine joy in 15:11, sandwiched between the mimetic imperatives of 15:10 and 15:12, may be similar to, or an expression of, the blessing he spoke of in 13:17. See also Brown, Gospel according to John, 2:553, 570; Beasley-Murray, John, 236; Folker Siegert, Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt, SIJD 7 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 483 (he sees allusions to Deut 28:1-4 and Hesiod, Op. 825-827). Dietzfelbinger observes that according to Plato, true insight into something good leads to doing it (Evangelium nach Johannes, 2:15). Schnelle sees a parallel in Seneca’s saying that happiness lies not in knowing but in doing [what has been learnt] (non est beatus, qui scit illa, sed qui facit (Ep. 75.7)) (Evangelium nach Johannes, 240 n. 38). Keener also notes that both early Christianity and Graeco-Roman antiquity endorse the principle ‘behaviour should correspond to knowledge’ (Gospel of John, 912). ‘Blessedness’ may even refer to the bestowal of divine honour. If the Father honours Jesus for carrying out his work (e.g. 17:45), then believers, in imitating Jesus, may also become the recipients of divine honour (cf. 15:8; 21:19).

98

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

for it (13:13-14, 16). Cognitive perception should then lead to a volitional, tangible act that imitates the original example (13:14-15). Finally, proper mimetic behaviour results in a state of ‘blessedness’ (13:17). Although it is clear that Jesus provided a mimetic imperative to his disciples, we have yet to determine its precise modus operandi. To this issue we now turn. 4.2.2 Johannine Mimesis as Cloning and Creative Articulation In this section I shall seek to establish a case for viewing mimesis primarily as a creative, faithful representation of the original action rather than cloning, although the latter is also in view. I contend that we do not have an either/or but a both/and situation. I will first argue my case based on a close analysis of 13:15; then, I shall offer supporting arguments from the broader Johannine literature. The Argument from John 13:15. To get to the crux of the Johannine concept of mimesis we must scrutinize various aspects of 13:15: (i) the function of γάρ in relation to 13:14; (ii) the meaning of ὑπόδειγμα (‘example, model, pattern’); (iii) the function of the ἵνα clause; and (iv) the meaning of the καθώς . . . καί construction.52 The conjunction γάρ logically connects 13:15 with 13:14, and most likely functions as an explanatory conjunction (‘for, you see’; cf. 3:16; 4:8) rather than a causal conjunction (‘because’, ‘since’). John 13:15 hardly provides the basis or grounds for the action in 13:14; rather, 13:15 builds on and explains the information in 13:14. To resolve the remaining issues in 13:15, we must deal with two possible interpretations. One possibility is to take the ἵνα clause as epexegetical, explaining the noun ὑπόδειγμα: ‘I gave you an example, namely that you also should do just as I did.’53 Mimesis is then locked up or implied in ὑπόδειγμα, that is, the mimetic ὑπόδειγμα is spelled out as ‘you should do as I did’.54 This reading could lead to viewing 52. Surprisingly, Thomas deals with just one of these four issues, namely ὑπόδειγμα (Footwashing, 110). 53. Bultmann prefers an explicatory ἵνα clause (Gospel of John, 475 n. 3). Although BDAG points out that a favourite Johannine usage is that ἵνα takes the place of the explanatory infinitive after the demonstrative pronoun οὗτος (e.g. 6:29, 39, 50; 15:8, 13; 17:3) (s.v. ἵνα, 2e), which is not the case here, this is not a conclusive argument against an epexegetical ἵνα in 13:15. The epexegetical usage of ἵνα in John occurs both without οὗτος (e.g. 1:27; 4:34) and with οὗτος (e.g. 6:39; 15:13) (Stanley E. Porter, Idioms of the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), ch. 14). 54. Zumstein leans towards this interpretation when he writes, ‘Ce geste se donne comme un exemple positif qu’il convient d’imiter (ὑπόδειγμα)’ (Évangile selon Saint Jean, 2:30). Similarly, van der Merwe contends that ὑπόδειγμα refers to someone or something to be imitated (‘Imitatio Christi’, 134). As a result, he then looks at six motifs where Jesus is as an exemplar for his disciples (light/darkness, shepherd, kernel of wheat, footwashing, love, obedience), assuming that the idea of imitation is present (pp. 135–39). However, not all these motifs contain the idea of mimesis. For example, in John 10 the shepherd calls and leads, while the sheep listen and follow. Or, his assertion, ‘As they [the people of the world]

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

99

mimesis as exact replication. Such an interpretation may find support in 13:34, which structurally parallels 13:15: (i) both verses start similarly – ‘I gave you an example’ versus ‘I give you a new commandment’; (ii) both have a καθώς . . . καί construction; (iii) of the two ἵνα clauses in 13:34, the first is clearly epexegetical. The implication is that if the first ἵνα clause in 13:34 is explanatory, ‘I give you a new commandment, namely that you should love one another. [Just as I loved you, you also should love one another.]’, 13:15 may equally run, ‘For I gave you an example, namely that you also should do just as I did.’55 However, an epexegetical ἵνα clause does not work easily with an epexegetical γάρ; it can hardly be the case that the ἵνα clause explains ὑπόδειγμα when 13:15 already explains 13:14. In other words, an epexegetical ἵνα clause, where 13:15b explains 13:15a, would make γάρ superfluous. This takes us to the second interpretation of 13:15 where ὑπόδειγμα simply denotes ‘example’ and Jesus states that this example needs imitation. Mimesis is then indicated by the καθώς . . . καί construction and ὑπόδειγμα harks back to the footwashing as ‘showing’, that is, the visible example or model for imitation. In which case, ἵνα would express purpose, ‘I gave you an example in order that you also should do just as I did.’ That is, Jesus indicates the purpose of the example (that the disciples should imitate it) rather than that he explains what the example consists of (the call for mimesis).56 The logical unit 13:14-15 can thus be translated, ‘Therefore, if I, the greater one, have washed your feet, you must also wash each other’s feet. For, you see, I gave you an example [in 13:5] in order that you also should do just as I did to you.’ Hence, ὑπόδειγμα itself is not defined as imitation (which an explanatory ἵνα clause would indicate) but as footwashing. The point is that Jesus provides a mimetic imperative that his example must be imitated. Both 13:14 (‘If I did this, you also ought to do this’) and 13:15b (‘Just as I did, you also must do’) indicate the intended mimesis. However, the exact mode of imitation (whether literal replication or faithful expression of the underlying idea) is not specified and must be determined by the context.

hated Jesus, so will they hate his disciples’ (p. 136) is an example of analogy rather than mimesis. 55. Others who interpret 13:15 through 13:34 (and 15:12) include Schenk, Lexikon zum Vierten Evangelium, 119–20; Niemand, Fusswaschungserzählung, 130–31; Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 23, 34–35, 40; van der Watt, ‘Social Redefinition’, 123–24. Cf. Coloe, who contends that the footwashing is an example of love rather than service because 13:15 and 13:34 ‘reciprocally interpret each other through their parallelism’ (‘Welcome into the Household of God’, 410). The idea of service, however, cannot be ignored with the twofold rationale in 13:14, 16. In my view, both elements – sacrificial, limitless love and humble service – must be held together (see also Zumstein, Évangile selon Saint Jean, 2:30). 56. Contra Barrett, who tries to have the best of both, claiming that ἵνα here is ‘John’s common “explanatory” ἵνα, indicating both the purpose and the content of the example’ (Gospel according to St. John, 443).

100

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Thomas disagrees, saying that if there is an explicit command in 13:14 that the disciples are to wash one another’s feet, 13:15 should be taken likewise.57 This is the strongest of Thomas’s three arguments for the practice of literal footwashing (see below for his remaining arguments). However, Jesus often uses ordinary or physical events to point to an underlying spiritual reality. For example, Jesus moves from the request for literal water to the offer of ‘living water’ (4:7-10), from literal food to the ‘food’ that sustains his mission (4:31-34), from physical bread to the ‘true bread’ (6:31-32), from physical sight (or lack of it) to spiritual insight (9:3941). Would it then be presumptuous to think that Jesus may have used the physical act of footwashing to point to the spiritual reality behind it, namely humble, loving service? That humble, loving service would also require a physical expression does not negate the thrust of the argument.58 We now turn to whether the mimetic imperative invites exact replication or creative, truthful representation. A few factors count against the former option. First, exact replication (or even mimesis) is not inherent in ὑπόδειγμα, which here simply denotes ‘example’, ‘pattern’ or ‘model’ of behaviour used for purposes of moral instruction (BDAG, s.v.).59 Thomas’s second argument for the literal practice of footwashing is that 13:15 contains the only ὑπόδειγμα Jesus gives.60 This truism, however, still begs the question what is the precise nature of Jesus’ example. Second, although the syntax of the καθώς . . . καί construction denotes comparison (here even mimesis), it does not automatically demand exact replication. Hence, I object to Thomas’s third argument for the literal practice of footwashing. Recognizing that καθώς . . . καί, of course, connects Jesus’ action in 13:4-10 with the disciples’ anticipated action, Thomas simply assumes literal replication.61 As I shall point out below, missing in Thomas’s treatment of the footwashing (and that of many others) is the vital distinction between the interpretation of the original act and the consequent mimetic act. Third, the phrase νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας had already acquired a figurative sense of providing humble service or showing hospitality by the first century (see also Gen 18:4; 1 Sam 25:41; Jos. Asen. 13:12; 20:3).62 Fourth, the footwashing has two intertwined meanings – a spiritual cleansing that Jesus will complete on the cross and humble, loving service – of which the first cannot be replicated. Hence, any imitation of the footwashing can only be partial.63 Fifth, 57. Thomas, Footwashing, 110. 58. However, I do not go as far as Tolmie, who contends that 13:15 must be understood metaphorically, anticipating the love command in 13:34 (Jesus’ Farewell, 72 n. 28, 201). 59. Although Schlier is correct to identify ὑπόδειγμα here as more than an example, namely a prototype (‘δείκνυμι’, 2:33), this is because the καθώς . . . καί construction makes the ὑπόδειγμα an example for imitation, hence a prototype. 60. Thomas, Footwashing, 110. 61. Ibid., 110. 62. BDAG, s.v. νίπτω; L&N, s.v. νίπτω; Konrad Weiss, ‘πούς’, TDNT 6:631; Herold Weiss, ‘Footwashing’, ABD 2:828; Thomas, Footwashing, 26–56; Bauckham, ‘Did Jesus Wash’, 192–93. 63. See also Lincoln, who remarks that the disciples’ imitation of Jesus will always be a ‘non-identical repetition’ (Gospel according to Saint John, 372).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

101

for John, it is unlikely that Jesus simply desired the exact replication of the visible act because to wash someone’s feet without an attitude of humility and love would certainly be to miss the point.64 Sixth, since mimesis requires understanding (so 13:12b, 17a), it cannot be mechanical copying. If it did, Jesus would simply have said in 13:17, ‘Amen, amen, I tell you, you must do exactly as I did.’ Instead, he adds εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε and gives an explanation in 13:14, 16. Thomas ignores the significance of Jesus’ question in 13:12b and hence the cognitive dimension of mimesis.65 Jesus’ question to the disciples in 13:12b about whether they had understood his action adds a cognitive aspect to the concept of mimesis. The rationale that Jesus then provides in 13:14, 16 is indicative of the importance of understanding the mimetic imperative in 13:15. After that, in 13:17, Jesus could simply have declared to his disciples, ‘You are blessed, when you do this,’ but once again he considers it necessary to underline the cognitive dimension of mimesis by preceding the phrase with the protasis εἰ ταῦτα οἴδατε.66 Yet, while Jesus answers the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of mimesis in 13:14, 16, he does not explicitly address the ‘how’ of mimesis. In other words, besides asking ‘What should I do?’ and ‘Why should I do this?’ (these questions Jesus answered in 13:14, 16), we must also ask ‘How, in what manner, should I do this?’ Although the καθώς . . . καί construction in 13:15 appears to answer the last question, it remains unclear whether this phrase demands exact replication or allows for creative articulation. Some may consider the ‘how’ of mimesis a moot question. Since footwashing was a common cultural practice in Jesus’ time (but not performed by the host), perhaps the only point Jesus wanted to make was that from then on his followers 64. Similarly, Siegert comments, ‘Der in Vorbild enthaltene Appell zielt nicht auf bloßes Imitieren, etwa von Bewegungen und Gesten, sondern auf Aneignung und Transfer, also Nachahmung im Sinne der Nachfolge’ (Evangelium des Johannes, 481). 65. In contrast, Léon-Dufour remarks that ‘Le passage entier, centré sur le “faire”, est encadré par des verbes de connaissance (“comprenez” et “sachant”)’ (Évangile selon Jean, 3:38). 66. The plural ταῦτα most likely refers to all that Jesus said in 13:12-16 (see also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 476 n. 5) and the matching plural αὐτά may refer to the various mimetic acts that communicate humble, loving service (Lincoln, Gospel according to Saint John, 373). Εἰ and the indicative mood in the protasis denotes a first-class or true condition, and οἴδατε here probably is a perfect with present force, indicating a present state of knowing. According to Daniel Wallace, although ἐάν and the subjunctive often indicates a third-class condition, that is, a condition that is uncertain of fulfilment but still likely, if the apodosis contains a present indicative (which is the case in 13:17), it actually is a fifthclass or present general condition, that is, a condition that addresses a generic situation in the present time with no indication of the likelihood of its fulfilment (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 696–97). In which case, we can translate ἐάν as ‘when’ and 13:17 would run, ‘If you understand these things [and you likely do], you are blessed when you do them’ (see also Niemand, Fusswaschungserzählung, 133).

102

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

were to regularly wash each other’s feet as an expression of their service to one another.67 However, John indicates that Jesus intended the practice of humble, loving service to extend beyond the literal act of footwashing to other acts that embody service (cf. 15:12-13; 1 John 3:16-18). If one concedes that Jesus’ mimetic imperative has contemporary relevance, one is forced to ask how it would look because the practice of footwashing has disappeared from most modern contexts. What kind of acts of humble, loving service would count as mimesis today? As we have seen, Jesus’ question in 13:12b injects a cognitive dimension into the concept of mimesis. This suggests that mimesis consists of two components: (i) the interpretation of the original act and (ii) the resulting mimetic act. The former corresponds to the understanding Jesus points to in 13:12b, while 13:17 indicates that the latter also entails a cognitive element. For John, mimesis is a hermeneutical process where the imitator interprets the original act in order to imitate it. To put it differently, the imitator must first understand the idea, attitude and purpose behind the original act, and then express this understanding in a tangible mimetic act. In the mimetic process, we must therefore distinguish between the interpretation of the original act and the corresponding act that articulates this understanding. This distinction helps to decide whether the mimetic act should be an exact replication of the original act or if it can be a creative expression of the original act. Besides the arguments stated earlier, there is another reason why the latter is more likely the case. The Johannine concept of mimesis excludes mindless cloning because the cognitive dimension demands that the original act be examined for its meaning, attitude and intent before it can be imitated. The subsequent mimetic act is the result of this understanding, that is, it is injected with the same meaning and carried out with the same attitude and intent as the original act. Thus, it is the meaning, intent and attitude underlying the original act that needs replication or cloning. Whether the mimetic act takes the same form or is a creative but faithful expression of the original act is less important. After all, even if Jesus had called for the exact replication of the footwashing, to do so without an attitude of humility and love would certainly have fallen short of his intention as John understands it. Hence, I do not object to the practice of literally washing someone’s feet to express humble, loving service (to kneel before a person to perform a demeaning task may aid the person’s attitude), but it does not exhaust the scope of what Jesus meant.68 The significance of the footwashing 67. Even so, this would already be countercultural and challenging (see n. 46). 68. Within the New Testament, 1 Tim 5:10 is the only other reference to the practice of washing the feet of fellow believers. Thomas traces the literal practice of footwashing in early Christian communities, although he admits that it is unfortunate that the Johannine Epistles do not refer to the practice (Footwashing, 128–46). See also Bauckham, ‘Did Jesus Wash’, 203–6. While Lincoln agrees that the mimetic act of 13:15 is not limited to the washing of feet, he nevertheless asserts that in the first-century church the literal replication of the footwashing continued to be a powerful demonstration of what it symbolized (Gospel according to Saint John, 372).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

103

in John 13 lies in understanding the concept (the need for humble, loving service to one another) and a resulting tangible expression that creatively but truthfully articulates this understanding. In this interpretative process, replication or cloning refers primarily to the transfer of the intended meaning and underlying attitude of the original act to a mimetic act.69 Supporting Arguments. There are other indicators in the wider Johannine literature that support our view. First, the paradigm for the disciple–Jesus mimesis is the Son–Father mimesis. We learnt in Section 3.1 that Jesus does not act independently of the Father but imitates what he sees the Father doing and hears the Father speaking. We also saw that Jesus on earth was in continual communication with his Father in heaven by means of the Spirit. Although it was less clear whether Jesus’ imitating the Father refers to literal replication or creative expression, I suggested that the latter is most likely in view. That is, the Son–Father mimesis has more to do with Jesus’ faithfully acting as or on behalf of God than a mindless cloning of God’s words and actions. Second, when we looked at the Spirit–Jesus mimesis in Section 3.2, we also suggested that the Spirit’s imitation of Jesus as a παράκλητος, especially as teacher, had more to do with a faithful reinterpretation of Jesus’ original teaching to suit the new context than a simplistic reiteration of Jesus’ literal words. Third, looking at other instances in the Johannine literature that suggest a disciple–Jesus mimesis, it is clear that an exact replication is not in view. For example, Jesus indicates that he sends the disciples into the world just as (καθώς) he was sent (17:18; 20:21) and that they will do the same works as Jesus did (τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ (14:12)). Yet, the disciples are clearly not sent into the world like Jesus by means of the incarnation, nor will they accomplish their task in the same manner that Jesus fulfilled the Father’s work – on the cross. Similarly, while the mimetic imperative to believers ‘to lay down their lives’ for others as the greatest expression or demonstration of their love (1 John 3:16 echoes 15:13), can involve literal replication (cf. 16:2 69. To explain this idea by way of a different terminology, I could also distinguish between mimetic form and mimetic content. The former has to do with how, in what manner, the imitation can occur, while the latter is concerned with what needs imitation. The content of mimesis relates to the underlying idea, attitude or motivation behind the act that needs imitation, and this mimetic content needs exact replication or cloning. With regard to the form of mimesis, however, it can be a creative but faithful articulation of the mimetic content. Some may feel uncomfortable with the terms ‘mimetic content’ and ‘mimetic form’ for these categories do not arise from the Johannine text. While I admit that the distinction between ‘interpretation of the original act’ and ‘mimetic act’ is closer to the text, the terms ‘mimetic content’ and ‘mimetic form’ can, I believe, also be helpful and legitimate. My use of ‘mimetic content’ corresponds to the understanding of the original act in terms of its meaning, intent, and so on, and ‘mimetic form’ denotes the tangible expression of this mimetic content. Both ‘mimetic content’ and ‘mimetic form’ result from the process of interpreting the original example. I thus use the categories ‘mimetic content’ and ‘mimetic form’ heuristically to distinguish between the understanding of the original act and the corresponding act that creatively articulates this understanding.

104

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

and 21:18-19), it would not have the same salvific dimension or effect as Jesus’ laying down his life.70 The point of the mimesis is that believers, in imitating their master, should love one another sacrificially and limitlessly, even if it means dying for the other.71 In sum, it appears that most scholars have neglected the significance of Jesus’ question in 13:12b and consequently the cognitive aspect of mimesis. They have overlooked the distinction between the interpretation of the original act and the mimetic act, and are therefore faced with the question whether mimesis refers to exact replication or creative representation. I have argued that instead of an either/or we have a both/and situation. Mimesis involves the understanding of the original act and the subsequent mimetic act that creatively but faithfully articulates this understanding. 4.2.3 Conclusion In examining the concept of mimesis in John 13, I have suggested that it involves the creative, truthful, tangible articulation of the idea and attitude that lie behind the original act rather than its exact replication. This is not to say that the exact replication of the act is invalid but it is not limited to it. Nevertheless, 70. Although the believer’s mimesis does not have the same effect or scope as Jesus’ original act, the requisite correspondence between the believer’s mimesis and Jesus’ original example nevertheless has a potentially salvific dimension. For in the re-enactment of Jesus’ ὑπόδειγμα, the imitator re-creates Jesus’ humble, loving service for the beneficiary so that she experiences Jesus for herself. This, in turn, may lead to her accepting Jesus and pledging allegiance to him. Though mimesis does not demand exact replication in form, it may happen (whether by choice or not) and as such would constitute an authentic mimetic expression. However, the extent or effect of the mimesis will not match that of the original mimetic example shown by Jesus. 71. See also Culpepper, ‘Johannine Hypodeigma’, 142–44. Francis J. Moloney adopts Culpepper’s interpretation (The Gospel of John, SP 4 (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998), 376). The two meanings of the footwashing are closely connected: 13:4-12a foreshadows the cleansing that Jesus will provide on the cross, while 13:12b-17 stresses the need for humble service. In addition, the entire footwashing must be viewed as an act of supreme love (εἰς τέλος ἀγαπᾶν) (13:1). Cf. 1 John 3:16, which connects 13:4-5 (θεῖναι [τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ] = πόδας νίπτειν), 13:14-15 (imitation of Jesus) and 15:13 (ἀγάπη = θεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ) to create the idea that, in imitating Jesus, believers should lay down their lives for one another as the expression of their love). The footwashing episode thus exemplifies supreme love (13:1), sacrifice (the laying down of one’s life in 13:4), servanthood and humility. The mimetic imperative Jesus provides here is to imitate him in the total, supreme act of loving, humble self-giving to the other. As de Boer asserts, the footwashing is ‘a summing up of Jesus’ whole life of self-giving’ and ‘the whole of their [the disciples’] following of Jesus was based on the deed here being portrayed to them’ (Imitation of Paul, 55). Contra Segovia, who keeps the meaning of the footwashing in 13:12-17 separate from that in 13:6-10a (‘John 13:1-20’, 45–46).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

105

there must remain a close correspondence between the creative articulation and the original example in order to qualify as mimesis. For John, the mimetic act must have a tangible form that can convey the same meaning as the original in order to be authentic and effective.72 An authentic and effective imitation of the footwashing would include the adoption of a slave identity (see n. 46) and thus retain a countercultural aspect since menial, servile service runs counter to human aspirations. As Bauckham asserts, ‘Footwashing was one of the most countercultural practices of early Christianity, symbolizing most radically the status-rejecting ideals of the early Christian communities.’73 The strong connection between the believer’s mimesis and Jesus’ original example also means that the mimetic act serves as a reminder of Jesus’ humble, loving service (supremely seen at the cross). To stretch this idea, the imitator and the mimetic act become a channel through which the beneficiary can experience Jesus and his humble, loving service for himself (see also 13:20).74 Johannine mimesis has cognitive and creative dimensions because it is a hermeneutical process that involves both the understanding of the original act and a resulting mimetic act that creatively but faithfully articulates this understanding.75 Hence, there are two essential components in mimesis: (i) the implied idea, attitude and purpose of the original act (which must be replicated exactly); and (ii) a tangible or concrete act that expresses this idea, attitude and purpose (this act can be a replication or a faithful, creative expression). This distinction makes the question of whether the intention of the mimetic imperative in 13:15 is literal replication or creative expression unnecessary. Hence, the title of Section 4.2 implies a false dichotomy – mimesis involves cloning and creative articulation.

72. In my view, for example, showing compassion for a homeless person by picking him up and providing him with a shower and a meal belongs to the conceptual mimetic domain of the footwashing, whereas throwing a coin at him does not. As long as the idea of humble loving service is in view, I would also approve the literal washing of feet to welcome new believers into God’s family (see also the positions of Niemand and Coloe in n. 38 above). 73. Bauckham, ‘Did Jesus Wash’, 206. 74. Cf. Thomas, Footwashing, 150. Considering the meaning of the literal practice of footwashing for the Johannine community, Thomas argues that it functioned as an extension of their water baptism and signified their continual cleansing from sin in continued fellowship with Jesus. Although this interpretation may have merit, Thomas seems to have disregarded the aspect of humble service. Besides, Thomas claims that footwashing should only be done for fellow believers, but I contend that no one should be excluded (see Section 4.3.5). After all, Jesus also washed Judas’s feet – albeit to no avail. 75. Although Spohn merely sees analogy in the footwashing episode (Go and Do Likewise, 51–56), his understanding of ‘analogical imagination’ as a creative and faithful re-enaction of Jesus’ action that is congruent with the prototype corresponds closely with my understanding of Johannine mimesis.

106

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

4.3 Actualizing the Love Command through Mimesis In the problematic realm of Johannine ethics, scholarship has assumed for a long time that Jesus’ love command in 13:34 is virtually the only (explicit) ethic (albeit perhaps as the précis of his commandments) in the Gospel or even entire Johannine Corpus.76 As a result, while publications on this subject abound, they all too often emphasize that believers should love one another and rarely address the means by which Jesus’ command can be carried out.77 The focus of this section, therefore, is on the practice of the love command. Our central question is this: How can believers actualize Jesus’ ethical imperative ‘to love one another’? In answer to this, I wish to argue that, for John, believers should and are able to love one another through mimesis. The mimetic chain looks like this: just as the Father loves Jesus, Jesus loves the disciples (15:9); just as Jesus loves the disciples, they should love one another (13:34; 15:12; 1 John 4:11). The concept of mimesis does not simply address why the love command must be carried out but also how it can be achieved or realized. Since mimesis is relational, believers can actualize the love command in and based on their relationship with Jesus. For it is precisely Jesus’ love for the believers (the original example or ὑπόδειγμα) that is the basis that motivates and empowers believers to love one another. I will argue my case using four passages (13:34-35; 15:9-17; 1 John 3:11-18; 4:7-21) because these contain the most pertinent references to the love command and its mimesis.78

76. For example, Houlden, Ethics in the New Testament, 36, 38; Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament, 91; Schnackenburg, Moral Teaching, 313, 322; Verhey, Reversal, 143; Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 304; Rensberger, Johannine Faith, 124–30; Marxsen, New Testament Foundations, 286; Matera, New Testament Ethics, 92–94; Meeks, ‘Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist’, 318; Schnelle, ‘Johanneische Ethik’, 309–27 (he traces the concept of love throughout the Johannine Corpus). For Siegfried Schulz, Johannine ethics includes besides Jesus’ love command also the Old Testament Decalogue (Neutestamentliche Ethik, 504). See also Kanagaraj, ‘Implied Ethics’, 37. In 2012, however, Michael Labahn and Ruben Zimmermann have painstakingly shown in the seminal study Rethinking the Ethics of John that Johannine ethics cannot be limited to the love command (see Chapter 1, n. 13 for details). 77. For the vast amount of literature on the Johannine subject of love, see Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 47–48 n. 14; Labahn, ‘“It’s Only Love”’, 20 n. 82. While Volker Rabens cogently argues that love (relationships) enables ethical living, he could have shown better that mimesis enables love (‘Johannine Perspectives on Ethical Enabling in the Context of Stoic and Philonic Ethics’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 114–39). Since mimesis also relates to other forms of the believer’s moral behaviour, such as humble service (13:15), obedience (15:10), and so on, it is imitating Jesus that enables the believers’ ethical life (see further Chapter 6). 78. The Johannine literature contains 107 occurrences of the terms ἀγαπᾶν, ἀγάπη and φιλεῖν (I excluded φίλος and ἀγαπητός), of which sixteen are imperatival in form or meaning. Twelve of the sixteen references to the love command occur in our selected

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

107

Before embarking on this task, I will briefly sketch the contours of the concept of love in the Johannine literature.79 Love is an existential identity marker in that it defines God (1 John 4:8, 16) and Jesus (in 17:26, God’s love residing in the believer is equated to Jesus residing in the believer), and identifies those who belong to God’s family (13:34; 14:23; 15:12, 17; 1 John 2:9-11; cf. 8:42). In fact, love serves as the hallmark by which others recognize those who belong to Jesus and God’s family (13:35). People do not naturally know or share in God’s love (5:42); instead, they ‘love’ the darkness that marks their existence (3:19). The mutual love between the Father and Son (3:35; 5:20; 14:31) is not exclusive but shared with or extended to the believer (14:21, 23; 16:27). By its nature, love is motivational, so it causes action (3:16; 13:34; 1 John 3:16-18). It is also demonstrable/tangible (14:15; 15:13; 1 John 3:18; 4:9), sacrificial (3:16; 15:13; 1 John 3:16), ethical (14:15, 21, 23; 15:10) and reciprocal (13:34; 14:21; 1 John 4:7, 11).80 In short, love is the social bond or glue between the members of the divine family and an important identity marker.81 Many Johannine scholars contend that John has an inward or sectarian outlook (due to the hostility of ‘the world’), so that the believer’s love is aimed exclusively

passages through various means: (i) the use of ἐντολή (and its cognate verb ἐντείλασθαι) (13:34; 15:12, 17; 1 John 3:23; 4:21; 2 John 5); (ii) an explicit imperative (1 John 2:15; 3:16; 4:11); (iii) occasions where ἵνα and the subjunctive have an imperative force (13:34; 15:17; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:21); (iv) an exhortatory subjunctive sometimes functions as a command (1 John 3:18; 4:7). All occurrences of mimesis regarding the love command occur in our selected passages: (i) mimesis indicated by καθώς (. . . καί) (13:34; 15:9, 10, 12; 1 John 4:17); (ii) mimesis that is implied (1 John 3:16; 4:11). Fernando F. Segovia employs Jürgen Becker’s hypothesis that 13:34-35 and 15:1-17 are added to the Gospel by the author of 1 John and concludes that they reflect the Sitz im Leben of 1 John with its emphasis on correct praxis (beyond correct belief) (Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agapē/Agapan in 1 John and the Fourth Gospel, SBLDS 58 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1982), 181–96). While I dispute this, it does not affect our understanding of how John envisages love will operate in the community of believers. 79. For more detailed treatments of the Johannine concept of love, see Segovia, Love Relationships; Sjef van Tilborg, Imaginative Love in John, BibInt 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1991); van der Watt, Family of the King, 304–20; Enno Edzard Popkes, Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus, WUNT II/197 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005); Frey, ‘Love-Relations’, 171–98; Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John. 80. Marxen observes a paradox in love’s reciprocity: ‘Love creates community, but it creates community only where community already exists. And vice versa: only where community exists, can love create community’ (New Testament Foundations, 288). 81. While ‘glue’ may seem too strong to express what I intend, ‘bond’ is perhaps too weak. Although glue is a substance, I use it to emphasize its adhesive property, that is, to steer away from a substance ontology towards a relational ontology of communion. At the same time, my use of bond indicates, beyond merely functional relationship, an ontological dimension. Houlden refers to love as ‘cement’ (Ethics in the New Testament, 38).

108

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

at fellow believers (a specific conventicle ethic).82 After all, the Johannine Jesus ‘merely’ commands his followers to love one another (ἀλλήλων), that is fellow believers, without mentioning one’s neighbour (Mark 12:31), let alone one’s enemies (Matt 5:44). As Ernst Käsemann declared: ‘There is no indication in John that love for one’s brother would also include love for one’s neighbour.’83 I will discuss this issue in Section 4.3.5, after we have examined the four love passages that we identified earlier. 4.3.1 The Giving of the Love Command (John 13:34-35) Jesus issues the love command in a private setting. Knowing that his departure from this world is imminent, Jesus retreats to have a final meal with his disciples and to dispense his final teachings (John 13–17). After Judas has left Jesus’ company (13:30), the time comes for Jesus’ final instructions, the first of which is the love command. In 13:34, Jesus tells his disciples, ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωμι ὑμῖν, ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους.84 We must obviously ask what is ‘new’ about this command because it is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (Lev 19:18) and in Jesus’ public ministry (Matt 5:43-44; 19:19; Mark 12:31). However, we shall first address a few syntactical issues. The first ἵνα clause is epexegetical, explaining the content of the commandment: ‘I give you a new commandment, namely that you love one another.’ The second ἵνα clause with the subjunctive has an imperative force, ‘You should/must love one another.’ The comparative conjunction καθώς in the protasis with the correlative καί in the apodosis constitutes a mimetic construction ‘Just as I loved you, you also should love one another.’85 Thus, while 13:34a provides the love command, 13:34b

82. For the most recent case that the Johannine writings do not depict an inwardlooking, sectarian community (without denying the existence of a Johannine community), see David A. Lamb, Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings, LNTS 477 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014). 83. Ernst Käsemann, The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17, trans. Gerhard Krodel (London: SCM, 1968), 59. 84. The use of the verb διδόναι causes Matera to say that the love command is a ‘gift’ from the departing Jesus to his disciples, similar to the ‘gifts’ of the Spirit, life and peace, rather than an ordinance of the Mosaic law (New Testament Ethics, 106). However, he seems to overlook the fact that John also presents the Mosaic law as a gift (διδόναι is used in 1:17; 7:19), albeit in contrast to what Jesus brings. A ‘giving’ of the love command is no more significant than ‘speaking’ it. 85. Although καθώς can also be causal, I contend that a comparative use is in view here because of the correlative καί. The καθώς . . . καί construction denotes mimesis nine times in the Johannine literature (10:15; 13:15; 13:34; 15:9; 17:18; 17:21; 20:21; 1 John 2:6; 4:17), and in most cases a causal use of καθώς is awkward. In fact, I am not aware of a single Bible translation that takes καθώς here as causal. Some scholars, however, claim that καθώς is both comparative and causal (see n. 91). While most scholars ‘merely’ recognize analogy

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

109

expands 13:34a with a mimetic imperative.86 The significance of this is that the love command is not given in a vacuum but has a precedent. That is, the disciples’ love for one another is based on their experience of Jesus’ love for them.87 This brings us to the issue of what the phrase ‘just as I loved you’ is referring to. When have the disciples encountered Jesus’ love? The immediate precedent is found in 13:1, which says that Jesus loved ‘his own who were in the world’ and is followed by Jesus demonstrating this in the act of footwashing.88 The footwashing constitutes an act of humble, limitless, self-giving love. It is an act of humility because ὁ κύριος acts as, and identifies with, δοῦλος (13:14, 16); it is an act of limitless love because it is εἰς τέλος (13:1); and it is an act of self-giving because, echoing 10:18, θεῖναι τὰ ἱμάτια in 13:4 alludes to Jesus’ ability ‘to lay down his life’, which he does in his death on the cross.89 Returning to 13:34, Jesus indicates to his or comparison in the love command (e.g. Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 23; van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 160), I claim that mimesis as a narrower form of analogy is in view. 86. Contra Spohn, who claims that ‘Jesus tells Christians to use their imaginations, to think analogically in moving from “as I have loved you” to “so you ought to love one another”’ (Go and Do Likewise, 52). Spohn, however, has a narrow understanding of mimesis as literal copying and thus misses the cognitive and creative aspects in the Johannine concept of mimesis. 87. Note also the following assertions: ‘Die Seinen [Jesus’ disciples] sollen einander erweisen, was sie zunächst von ihrem Herrn empfangen haben’ (Anselm Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 299); ‘Die Bruderliebe hat also in der Liebe des Offenbarers zu den Seinen ihren Grund. Nur als Geliebte vermögen sie sich gegenseitig zu lieben’ (Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, 498); ‘Only those who have been loved can love. . . . John repeatedly grounds love in being loved’ (Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 300). Just as in Paul’s thought, the imperative (to love fellow believers) is preceded by and based on the indicative (Jesus’ love for the believer) (see Bultmann, Gospel of John, 526–27; Victor Paul Furnish, The Love Command in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1972), 138; Verhey, Reversal, 143; Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 300; van Tilborg, Imaginative Love, 158; Scholtissek, ‘Eine größere Liebe’, 436). 88. While there is debate about the referent of οἱ ἴδιοι [ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ] – whether the object of Jesus’ love is people in general (cf. 1:11), the Jewish people, or those who belong to Jesus (10:3-4) – it would certainly include the disciples. Virtually all scholars connect 13:3435 with the footwashing pericope: for example, Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 300; Furnish, Love Command, 136; Sanders, Ethics in the New Testament, 97; Schnackenburg, Moral Teaching, 324; Collins, ‘“New Commandment”’, 106–7, 117–18; Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, 500–503; Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 306–7; Segovia, Farewell of the Word, 77 n. 38; Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 23, 34–35, 40; Matera, New Testament Ethics, 106–7; Hays, Moral Vision, 144; Nissen, ‘Community and Ethics’, 201; Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 251–52; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 606; Schnelle, ‘Johanneische Ethik’, 317–18; van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 161; Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 343–45; Siegert, Evangelium des Johannes, 492; Frey, ‘Love-Relations’, 192–93. 89. The phrase εἰς τέλος can mean ‘completely, totally’ or temporally ‘to the end’, and probably both are in view here.

110

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

disciples that, in imitating him, they should show the same love to one another. Echoing the language of 13:15, we may say that Jesus’ love for his disciples is the ὑπόδειγμα (‘example’ or ‘pattern’) for their love of one another. But Jesus’ ὑπόδειγμα of love is more than just an object lesson or practical example that the disciples must repeat. They have seen this love in action and experienced it for themselves. This implies that Jesus’ love for his disciples is not simply the example he sets but also the basis that motivates and empowers them to do likewise.90 Hence, de Boer rightly observes that the newness of the love command is not in the command to love per se, but in ‘the new ground from which their love springs. . . . In his [Jesus’] death he is securing the possibility of the love he commands. His love for them is the ground and motive for their love.’91 This is a significant aspect of mimesis. Mimesis springs from a relationship with Jesus where believers have observed and experienced his love for themselves.92 The mimesis believers are called to is not simply imitating something Jesus did objectively but what he did for them. Hence, his setting the example is the basis from which believers can imitate him.93 Jesus’ showing his love for or to the 90. See also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 525. 91. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 56. See also Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 301, 307. Similarly, Verhey states that ‘the new imperative is based on a new indicative, the love of God in Christ and the love of Christ in his own’ (Reversal, 143), and Burridge concludes, ‘What is “new” in John is that Jesus provides a new motive and power for the love command’ (Imitating Jesus, 327). Arguing that καθώς should be taken as both comparative and causal, Augenstein thus states, ‘Die Liebe Jesu würde dadurch zur Motivation der Liebe untereinander und zum Grund, der diese Liebe überhaupt erst ermöglicht’ (Liebesgebot, 23–24 (quotation from p. 24); see also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 525; Collins, ‘New Commandment’, 117, 119; Segovia, Love Relationships, 123; Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 258; Zumstein Johannesevangelium, 516). Besides the christological basis, Schnackenburg contends that the ‘newness’ of the love command also relates to eschatology in that God’s primordial love has now become visible in Jesus (Moral Teaching, 323–25; see also Bultmann, Gospel of John, 527; Furnish, Love Command, 138; Collins, ‘New Commandment’, 113–16; Siegfried Schulz, Neutestamentliche Ethik, 499; Matera, New Testament Ethics, 106–7). See further the discussion in Schrage, Ethics of the New Testament, 314–16. Ben Witherington offers another perspective on the ‘newness’ of the love command: ‘This love commandment differed from the great commandment to love God and neighbor in that it is directed to Jesus’ followers alone and is meant to create a certain ethos and koinōnia among his disciples’ (The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament. Vol. 1 The Individual Witnesses (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009), 503). Similarly, for Hans Weder, the ‘newness’ lies in the creation of a new realm (namely, love) in and from which the believers live and operate (‘Das neue Gebot: Eine Überlegung zum Liebesgebot in Johannes 13’, in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes/Études sur Matthieu et Jean, ed. Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz, ATANT 97 (Zürich: TVZ, 2009), 196). 92. See also de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 57. 93. Similarly, Hartin concludes that ‘the ethical life of the Christian always remains a response to what Jesus has done on their behalf. . . . In this way they imitate the self-sacrificing

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

111

disciples thus enables them to love one another.94 Jesus’ example is hence not simply the model to imitate but also the empowering and motivational basis from which believers can imitate him. In examining the footwashing scene (Section 4.2), I showed that mimesis includes four stages (observing, understanding, doing, being), that is, someone visibly shows what needs imitation, which must then be comprehended and expressed in a corresponding tangible act by the imitator. I also argued that mimesis consists of both the interpretation of the original act and the corresponding mimetic act, in which the latter can be a creative but faithful articulation of the original. The implication is that just as Jesus showed his love to his disciples in a perceptible, tangible act, so the disciples’ love for one another must also be a concrete act. The disciples had first observed and experienced Jesus’ love in action in the act of footwashing. Then, as a logical inference, the disciples must understand Jesus’ love (e.g. in terms of its nature and scope) before they can imitate it. The imitation of Jesus’ love entails that its content must be cloned (a love that is humble, limitless and self-giving) but its form can be a creative, faithful, concrete articulation of the mimetic content (a tangible love act that corresponds to the original but need not be identical to it).95 John 13:35 confirms that the mimetic love act must be concrete or tangible; it must be observable by outsiders.96 First, the perceptible expression of love shows that the disciples truly belong to Jesus. Since love defines God (cf. 1 John 4:8, 16) and is one of the characteristics that define the relationship between the Father and the Son, it naturally follows that those who are born into God’s family (1:12-13; 3:3-5) must show corresponding family behaviour, that is, behaviour that emulates and reflects the divine family norms and values. John 13:35 thus shows the correlation between ethics and identity: appropriate behaviour (to imitate Jesus’ love in action) confirms (perhaps even advances) one’s status within God’s family. Conversely, knowing one is a child of God, the believer will love of Jesus and it is this self-sacrifice which gives content to the love that is required’ (‘Remain in Me’, 354). For Hartin, the ethical model which the farewell discourses emphasize is one of relationship-response, in which the disciples’ responses to Jesus are patterned on Jesus’ response to the Father (Ibid., 354–55). Collins concludes, ‘Thus it would seem not only legitimate but exegetically imperative to speak of an ethics of imitation with respect to the Johannine formulation of the love commandment’ (‘New Commandment’, 118). 94. See also Tolmie, Jesus’ Farewell, 201; Léon-Dufour, Évangile selon Jean, 3:83; Rabens, ‘Johannine Perspectives’, 120–27. 95. Although Burridge is one of the few who speaks of imitating Jesus, he does not unfold John’s concept of mimesis (Imitating Jesus, 344–45). 96. Marxen thus observes, ‘Loving one another takes place in a circle that is closed but not closed-off. For it happens publicly’ (New Testament Foundations, 289 (original emphasis)). Marxen then deals at length with the issue of how this love can be made visible in the public eye, concluding that only the footwashing pericope fills the imperative to love one another with specific content – and even then John does not indicate how this example of lowly service can be translated into other concrete action (Ibid., 289–96).

112

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

or should behave accordingly. Finally, since love is the hallmark of discipleship and the command to love one another is expressed as a mimetic imperative, it follows that mimesis serves discipleship because it promotes and enacts acceptable family behaviour, required to stay within the family. Love does not only serve as an identity marker within the circle of believers, it also has a missional focus since it is observable by outsiders. Enno Popkes remarks that in the entire Gospel of John, γινώσκειν implies ‘eine persönliche Akzeptanz des Erkannten’ (e.g. 14:31; 17:21, 23).97 Observing the love among believers could cause non-believers to be drawn to Jesus (see further Section 4.3.5). 4.3.2 Abiding and Supreme Love (John 15:9-17) The second farewell discourse portrays two contrasting groups and attitudes: the disciples who are to exemplify love (15:1-17), and the world which is characterized by hate (15:18–16:4a).98 The first bit of information, significant for our purposes is in 15:9a where Jesus proclaims a mimesis of love: καθὼς ἠγάπησέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς ἠγάπησα (‘Just as the Father has loved me, I also have loved you’). In Chapter 3, we saw that the idea of Jesus imitating the Father is most explicit in 5:19-20, where the Father’s love is the motivational basis for showing (δεικνύειν) Jesus everything that he is doing, so that Jesus can imitate him. Jesus’ assertion of his love for the disciples goes back to 13:1, 34 and its demonstration in the footwashing.99 Then, in 15:9b there is Jesus’ imperative to the disciples to abide in his love, that is the shared love between the Father and Son.100 The concept of abiding in Jesus’ love finds parallels in abiding in Jesus and in his words (15:4, 7). In fact, in 15:4 Jesus explains the concept of mutual indwelling (μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί, κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν) by another mimetic picture: just as (καθώς) the branches can bear fruit only when they abide in the vine, so (οὕτως) the disciples can do so only when they abide in Jesus.101 And just as Jesus does nothing of his own accord 97. Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 266. 98. John 15:1-17 has two parts: 15:1-8, which is dominated by the vine metaphor, and 15:9-17, where the theme of love is central (e.g. Segovia, Love Relationships, 108; Klaus Scholtissek, In Ihm Sein und Bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften, Herders Biblische Studien 21 (Freiburg: Herder, 2000), 298). 99. Cf. Scholtissek, who contends that 15:1-17 is a relecture (‘rereading’) of 13:1-17 (‘Eine größere Liebe’, 435–36). Although it is possible that 15:1-17 is a later composition that rereads 13:1-17 (relecture is used in diachronic analysis), it could also be a réécriture (‘rewriting’), a synchronic concept where the same author takes up an earlier theme but expands on it or expresses it differently. 100. See also Weder, who uses the concept of the believer remaining in ‘ein dynamischer Lebensraum der Liebe’ (‘a dynamic habitat of love’) (‘Das neue Gebot’, 199–200). 101. The καθώς . . . οὕτως construction denotes mimesis three times in the Johannine literature (12:50; 15:4; 1 John 2:6). Dorothy Lee observes that ‘fruit-bearing is concerned with growth in love’ (Flesh and Glory: Symbol, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2002), 95 (original emphasis)).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

113

(5:19), so the disciples are (or should be) utterly dependent on Jesus (χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν (15:5)) and abide in him. Mimesis is therefore at heart a relational concept: the imitator must rely on the one who shows the example. The logical question is then, ‘How can the disciples abide in Jesus’ love?,’ to which 15:10a gives the answer – by keeping his commandments (cf. 14:15, 21, 23). I make two observations. First, ‘to keep Jesus’ commandments’ most likely refers to adherence to his entire teaching (cf. 14:21, 23; 1 John 2:3-5), but it would certainly include the commandment of 13:34, so that disciples remain in Jesus’ love by loving one another.102 In other words, believers partake in the shared love between the Father and Son when (perhaps even to the extent that) they share that love with other believers.103 Second, 15:10b clarifies that the keeping of Jesus’ commandments is not meant to be a legalistic exertion of one’s will but once again a mimetic act: just as (καθώς) Jesus has kept his Father’s commandments and (hence) abides in his love, so the disciples should imitate Jesus. Jesus shows the example first and his disciples can then (and therefore) imitate him. Not surprisingly, John adds that keeping Jesus’ commandments is not burdensome or difficult (βαρύς) for those who are born of God (1 John 5:3-4). For those who are part of God’s family it is not (or should not be) arduous to display acceptable family behaviour (to love one another) because they have experienced Jesus’ love for themselves and are thus empowered to imitate Jesus and articulate this love to one another. Victor Furnish thus rightly asserts, ‘The point is not just that brotherly love should be “like” the divine love. Rather, the love expressed among men is to be the extension, the completion – the “perfection” – of God’s own love.’104 Simply put, in the act of mimesis, believers experience (perhaps even receive afresh) the divine love and pass it on to others. While 15:12 simply repeats 13:34, the verses that follow provide a significant expansion. In 15:13, Jesus tells his disciples that the supreme or ultimate expression of love is to give up (lit., ‘to lay down’) one’s life for one’s friends, that is, fellow believers.105 Through the use of θεῖναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν φίλων αὐτοῦ, 102. Cf. Dietzfelbinger, Evangelium nach Johannes, 2:108. While he equates ‘keeping the commandments’ in 14:15, 21 with ‘believing’, he contends that the reference in 15:10 is the love command (cf. 15:12). 103. A similar idea is found regarding another identity marker, namely ζωή (divine life). While Jesus is the source of divine life (1:4; 4:10, 14), the disciples become derivative sources of life (7:37-38), that is, the life that Jesus provides is supposed to flow through believers to others. More specifically, just as Jesus’ Spirit-imbued words are life-giving (6:63), so the believers’ Paraclete-imbued testimony about Jesus has the potential to provide life (15:2627; 17:20). 104. Furnish, Love Command, 157–58. 105. While 15:13 conceptually links love to friendship, syntactically the noun φίλος (‘friend’) is a derivative of the verb φιλεῖν (‘to love’). Scholtissek seeks to understand 15:13 against the backdrop of Graeco-Roman friendship (‘Eine größere Liebe’, 413–39; cf. Siegert, Evangelium des Johannes, 494). For the concept of friendship in John, see J. Massyngbaerde Ford, Redeemer – Friend and Mother: Salvation in Antiquity and in the Gospel of John

114

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Jesus builds a connection with 10:11, where he speaks of laying down his life for the sheep, and with 13:4, where he ‘lays down’ his robe (proleptic of laying down his life on the cross) in order to wash his disciples’ feet. Through this complex web of ideas, Jesus indicates that, at its heart, love is sacrificial and limitless – it may demand all.106 The connection between being Jesus’ friends and keeping his commandments in 15:14 echoes 15:10. The idea is not so much that obedience is a prerequisite for belonging to Jesus (earning status through behaviour) as it is the demonstration that one belongs to Jesus (behaviour authenticates status).107 As a child of God and a friend of Jesus, one belongs to the family of God and should therefore behave according to the family norms and values, which in turn confirms one’s status within the family. Indeed, Jesus’ identification of the disciples as his friends rather than slaves (15:15) implies, in the light of 8:35, that they already have received a permanent place in the Father’s household or family (οἰκία). In sum, there is a mimetic chain of love: the starting point is the Father’s love, which is directed towards his Son; the Son imitates the Father and directs his love towards the disciples; and the disciples are to imitate Jesus and express this divine love towards one another.108 Segovia correctly notes that καθώς establishes a hierarchical order of love – from God to Jesus to the disciples.109 As van der Watt has also stressed, unlike reciprocity, mimesis is hierarchical and asymmetrical.110 While the Johannine concept of love is reciprocal, it also has a strong mimetic dimension and thus a unidirectional or outward-focused dimension. Love flows from the Father to the Son to the disciples. If the love between the Father and Son had been only reciprocal, it would have remained an exclusive divine quality. However, since love is also mimetic, the Father’s love is mediated to the disciples via Jesus. Mimesis is inclusive and directed outwards (centrifugally), whereas reciprocity is exclusive in that it refers to a mutual exchange of goods (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997), ch. 7; Sharon H. Ringe, Wisdom’s Friends: Community and Christology in the Fourth Gospel (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999); van der Watt, Family of the King, 360–67; Lee, Flesh and Glory, 99–104; Gail R. O’Day, ‘Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John’, Int 58 (2004): 144–57; Culy, Echoes of Friendship. 106. Contra Segovia who, surprisingly, claims that ‘correct belief ’ is the highest form of mutual love (Love Relationships, 119–20). Ironically, John 15 is one of the few chapters where πιστεύειν does not occur. Moloney is more on target, stating that 15:12-14 speaks of the quality of Jesus’ love for his disciples as the pattern of their love for one another (Love in the Gospel of John, 118). 107. See also Scholtissek, who observes that John 15 deals with the disciples’ remaining in Jesus rather than their entering into this relationship (In Ihm Sein und Bleiben, 301). 108. Segovia also detects a chain of love, albeit not a mimetic chain (Farewell of the Word, 152–55). Similarly, while Frey correctly identifies a ‘cascade’ of love expressions (from God to the Son to the believers [to ‘the world’]), he fails to notice that it is a mimetic cascade (‘LoveRelations’, 194; see also Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 70; van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 160). 109. Segovia, Love Relationships, 108. 110. Van der Watt, ‘Reciprocity’, 266; idem, ‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 418–20.

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

115

and services to two parties.111 In fact, Jesus exemplifies the love his followers are to imitate and commands them to extend this love to one another rather than to love him in return. Hence, the movement is not circular (as with reciprocity) but unidirectional (characteristic of mimesis). (See also Sections 2.1 and 3.3.) In addition, the believers’ relationship with the Father and Son in which they experience and participate in the shared love of the Father and Son is most likely the empowerment for mimesis. In other words, the believers’ participation in the love relationship between the Father and Son enables them to actualize the love command. We now turn to the Johannine Epistles. 4.3.3 Love in Action (1 John 3:11-18) Having elaborated on what it means to be children of God (1 John 2:28–3:9), John sums it all up: doing what is right and loving fellow believers distinguishes the children of God from those of the devil (1 John 3:10).112 This might have led John to explain further, in 1 John 3:11-18, the two basic, incompatible moral attitudes (love versus hate), their corresponding behaviours (sacrificial, compassionate, truthful deeds versus evil deeds) and resulting states of being (abiding in life versus abiding in death). The first reference to Jesus’ love command in the Johannine Epistles occurs in 1 John 3:11, ὅτι αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀγγελία ἣν ἠκούσατε ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς, ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους, and in the verses thereafter John elaborates on what this love should look like.113 First, however, he cautions his audience against imitating Cain for those who hate fellow believers (lit., ὁ ἀδελφός αὐτοῦ) are murderers and abide in death (1 John 3:12-15).114 The reference to Cain being ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ and partaking in τὰ ἔργα πονηρά (1 John 3:12) suggests that he is a child of the devil (1 John 3:10), who is also known as ὁ πονηρός (1 John 2:13-14; 5:18-19; cf. John 17:15). The antichrists, who are characterized by lies and denial (1 John 2:18-22; 4:3; 2 John 7), probably also belong to the devil (John 8:44). If we consider John’s Gospel, it is safe to say that Cain, Judas, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι and the world imitate their

111. Contra Pregeant, who understands the concept of love as ‘a Johannine triangle of reciprocity’, in which God’s love (for the Son and the believers) is the basis for both the Son’s love (for the Father and the believers) and the believers’ love (for God and one another) (Knowing Truth, 200–201). Although love is indeed reciprocal for John, Pageant seems to have overlooked the concept of mimesis, where the Son’s love is, in turn, the basis for the believers’ love. Weder aptly observes that Jesus does not command his followers to love him but one another, indicating the ever-progressive movement of love (‘Das neue Gebot’, 201). 112. For the interdependence of brotherly love and internal church conflicts, see Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 136–61. 113. Although ἡ ἀγγελία is used rather than ἡ ἐντολή, undoubtedly John harks back to John 13:34. 114. Equating hating with killing in 1 John 3:15 is perhaps derived from Jesus’ teaching (Matt 5:21-22).

116

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

father the devil (3:19; 8:40, 44; 15:18; 16:2).115 The children of God, however, are to show a contrasting attitude and behaviour – they are to imitate their Father. John reminds his audience that they know what love is because Jesus has demonstrated it in laying down his life for the sheep (1 John 3:16; cf. John 15:13; 10:11). Beyond a reference to a cognitive assent, this knowing has an empirical dimension in that they have experienced this love for themselves (see also John’s frequent appeal to sensory perception in 1 John 1:1-5; 2:7, 18, 24; 3:1, 11; 4:3, 14). Moreover, 1 John 3:16 includes an implicit mimetic imperative: ‘He laid down his life for us – likewise (καί) we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow believers.’ Believers ought to (ὀφείλειν) imitate Jesus in laying down their lives for their fellow believers (οἱ ἀδελφοί), that is, they should demonstrate a love that is self-giving and limitless.116 In the following verse John stresses that love must be tangible and should be demonstrated in action (1 John 3:17). John sets a very practical test before his audience: if you see a fellow believer with a need and you have the means to help (ἔχειν τὸν βίον τοῦ κόσμου), you cannot refuse to show compassion (lit., ‘to shut your bowels or heart’; κλείειν τὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ).117 He effectively reasons that if God’s love truly resides in a believer, the person must express this love in concrete action.118 115. For a detailed explanation of the Cain motif, see Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 115–25. 116. Hence, I do not see a reason why the imperative in 1 John 3:16b rules out a literal referent, in that allegiance to Jesus may demand the believer’s life (cf. John 16:2; 21:18-19; the persecution of Christians throughout history). Contra Frey, who contends that ‘to lay down our lives for the brother’ does not refer to real martyrdom but to the obligation of sharing material possessions within the community as we find in 1 John 3:18 (‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 181). Segovia also softens the impact of 1 John 3:16b: ‘I would see the love being urged upon the brethren in v. 3:16b, a love which is patterned after Jesus’ redemptive death, as including an acceptance of that redemptive death, an acceptance which has definite ethical consequences’ (Love Relationships, 56). To give one’s life for a friend, the family or the polis was a virtuous ideal in Graeco-Roman antiquity (e.g. Plato, Symposium, 179b; Aristotle, Nic. eth., IX.8; Seneca, Epistulae morales 9.10) (Scholtissek, ‘Eine größere Liebe’, 221–22; Keener, Gospel of John, 1004–5; Culy, Echoes of Friendship, 157–58). 117. Judith M. Lieu remarks that the situation envisaged here may not have been unusual because the economic realities of the early Roman Empire were such that most the population lived close to the breadline and were particularly vulnerable to the uncertainties of unemployment or food supply (I, II & III John: A Commentary (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 151). 118. James applies the same logic to faith (James 2:14-17). Schnackenburg observes a parallel in Philo, Decal. 120: ‘It is impossible that the invisible God can be piously worshipped by those people who behave with impiety towards those who are visible and near to them [i.e. their parents]’ (Moral Teaching, 326). Schrage thus comments on this verse: ‘This shows clearly that for Johannine ethics, which often appears so abstract and theoretical, too ready to come to terms with dualism, love is not something poetic, not merely something radical: it is something very prosaic, concrete, material, earthly, and corporeal. Here, fortunately, we find an absolute limit standing in the way of any spiritualizing tendency to consider

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

117

John sums it up with the exhortation to love ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ (‘in action/ deed and truth’) rather than by word or speech (1 John 3:18; cf. 2 John 1; 3 John 1).119 Syntactically, the anarthrous nouns ἔργον and ἀλήθεια, conjoined by καί and governed by the single preposition ἐν form a hendiadys, that is, a conceptual unit (cf. John 3:5; 4:23 6:63), meaning to love ‘by means of ’ or ‘in’ action-and-truth, even ‘truthful action’. John’s overall point is clear: love must be both demonstrable and truthful – a tangible act of limitless self-giving. Besides, since ‘truth’, for John, refers to the divine reality in general (i.e. the reality about God and the world above) and to Jesus as its dispenser and embodiment in particular (John 1:14; 8:31-32; 14:6; 18:37), to love ἐν ἔργῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ denotes a concrete act of love that reflects or imitates the divine love that the Father and Son share, which has been demonstrated in the Father giving up his Son and the Son giving up his life. The Johannine literature only provides two concrete examples of love in action (the footwashing in John 13 and economic assistance in 1 John 3:17), but believers do not need a list of potential actions. Instead, for John, love becomes the dominating moral force and attitude of the believers’ behaviour, so that all their actions should be informed and characterized by love. Besides, love is a primary identity marker of God in relationship and such a relationship cannot be spelled out in every detail.120 everything earthly as less than authentic. When suffering members of the community are not given palpable help in their everyday earthly need, love is not present. The author does not ask whether a feeling of unity or solidarity may not be present, or whether motives and intentions are pure. Those who refuse concrete, material aid have disrupted the community and closed their hearts. It is not the intention but the deed that counts’ (Ethics of the New Testament, 319). Seeing 1 John 3:11-17 as an elaboration of 1 John 3:10, Wengst claims that love in action is an act of justice rather than of charity (Brief des Johannes, 152–53). Frey elaborates on the family ethos of 1 John as ‘practical love’, that is love that relates to matters of communal life, property and material possessions (‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 177–83). 119. Closest to John’s thought is the phrase ‘to love God in truth’ in Pss. Sol. 6:6; 10:3; 14:1. Eph 4:15 uses the reverse concept ἀληθεύειν ἐν ἀγάπῃ ‘to speak the truth in love’. For the close connection between love and truth, see also Pss 50:8; 83:12 (LXX); Zech 8:19; 2 Thess 2:10; 1 Pet 1:22. 120. See also Paul’s exhortation ‘to keep in step with the Spirit’ and ‘to be guided by the Spirit’. Similarly, van der Watt concludes that the relational nature of the Johannine concept of love ‘elevates ethics above a list of rules to reciprocal interpersonal relationship-orientated loyalty’ (‘Ethics and Ethos’, 165 (original emphasis)). I am less convinced, however, by van der Watt’s claim that a law-based Jewish value system, interpreted christologically, will guide the moral decisions of the Johannine group (Ibid., 152–57, 166; ‘Ethics of/and the Opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 189). I see more discontinuity in that Hellenistic Judaism promotes a Torahbased identity and ethos, while early Christians (including John) advocate a Christ-based identity and ethos (see also William R.G. Loader, ‘The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 143–58; Frey, ‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 202; Thomas H. Tobin, ‘The Importance of Hellenistic Judaism for the Study of

118

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

4.3.4 God’s Love Compels (1 John 4:7-21) John returns to the topic of love in 1 John 4:7-21. He starts the section with the exhortation to love one another, appealing this time not to a commandment (as in 1 John 3:11) but to God’s very nature (1 John 4:7-8; cf. 4:16b). The phrase ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν shows that love is a defining characteristic of God. The logic is that those who belong to God (who is love) will love too because those who love are born of God and know God (in relationship). The idea behind the phrase πᾶς ὁ ἀγαπῶν ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται (1 John 4:7b) is not that human love can bring about a birth of God because love originates ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ (1 John 4:7a; cf. 4:10, 19). Instead, a birth ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ is the basis for displaying the love that comes ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ so that one’s love characterizes or is evidence that one belongs to God. That is, the behaviour of loving other believers confirms the believer’s status as a child of God.121 From 1 John 4:9-11, I infer three important principles. First, God’s initiative to love precedes that of believers (cf. 1 John 4:19). The implication is that believers can love because (they have experienced that) God loves them.122 In other words, God’s love is the very thing that enables or empowers believers to love too. Second, believers should love because God loves them.123 The combination of the verb ὀφείλειν and the phrase οὕτως . . . καί in 1 John 4:11 provides a mimetic imperative, ‘If [as is the case] God loves us in this way [described in 1 John 4:9-10], we also ought to love one another.’ Third, believers should love in action because God did too. God’s visible demonstration of his love in sending his only Son into

Paul’s Ethics’, in van Henten and Verheyden, Early Christian Ethics, 147–65). Nevertheless, if Hanna Stettler is right to view Jesus’ directive τηρεῖν τὰς ἐντολάς μου (‘to keep my [Jesus’] commandments [plural]’; 14:15, 21; 15:10) against an Old Testament background as a claim that Jesus is the new Law-giver (‘Die Gebote Jesu im Johannesevangelium (14,15.21; 15,10)’, Bib 92 (2011): 554–79), then Jesus’ teaching as a source for Johannine ethics may have some continuity with the ethical teaching of Torah. 121. See also Schnackenburg, who labels love ‘a criterion for our participation in the life of God’ (Moral Teaching, 327); Collins, who states, ‘Brotherly love means that the loving disciples participate in the very life of God’ (‘New Commandment’, 119); and Schrage, who asserts, ‘Love is the sign par excellence that one belongs to the sphere of life and salvation in which the disciples dwell’ (Ethics of the New Testament, 318). While Lieu is partly right to note that such love would not be found outside the circle of believers (I, II & III John, 178), I contend that this divine love is not exclusively for the members of God’s family but is to be extended to outsiders (see the discussion that follows in Section 4.3.5). 122. See also Schulz, who states that ‘Die gegenseitige ἀγάπη der Christen gründet in der persönlich erfahrenen, zuvorkommenden Liebe Gottes’ (Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 247). Similarly, Schnelle remarks that ‘Gottes Gabe der Liebe ermöglicht [‘enables’] die Liebe der Glaubenden zueinander’ (Johannesbriefe, 152). 123. God’s proactive love for ‘us’ creates the obligation to love one another in turn, that is, those who are fellow recipients of God’s love (Lieu, I, II & III John, 184).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

119

the world as an atoning sacrifice to provide forgiveness and life (1 John 4:9-10), speaks of a love that is tangible, limitless and sacrificial. The relational concept of God’s love, hinted at by the expressions of being born of God and knowing God in 1 John 4:7, is unpacked by the ‘indwelling’ language in 1 John 4:12-16. Love for one another signals that God abides in the believer (and vice versa) because to abide in love is to abide in God who is love. And since God is love, the odd expression ‘to believe in God’s love’ (1 John 4:16) probably refers to believing in God himself. This mutual indwelling of God and the believer is facilitated through the Spirit given to the believer (1 John 3:13; cf. 1 John 3:24; John 14:16-17, 23; 20:22). The Spirit mediates God’s presence to believers in a tangible way so that they ‘know’ God and his love.124 That is, to know God and his love is an experiential knowing in relationship with him by means of the Spirit. The latter part of the passage continues to unpack the mimetic concept of love. The καθώς . . . καί construction in 1 John 4:17 expresses an ‘existential’ mimesis: ‘Just as he [God] is [in heaven], we also are in this world.’ Contra the majority of scholars who contend that the referent of ἐκεῖνος is Jesus, I tentatively suggested in Section 2.2 (‘1 John 4:17b’ under category 3) that it is God (see also Section 4.4.2).125 Admittedly, all other occurrences of ἐκεῖνος in 1 John most likely refer to Jesus (2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16), but the focus in 1 John 4:7-21 is God rather than Jesus. In the light of the entire passage, verse 17 can then be paraphrased as ‘Just as God is love and has shown it, we also are to be characterized by love in action in this world.’ The significance of this mimesis is that the believers are to imitate on earth the God who is in heaven. In 1 John 4:20, John pushes this idea further when he indicates that one cannot (claim to) love the unseen God and hate fellow believers who can be seen. To say ‘I love God’ may be easy but one’s love for God is effectively measured by that person’s love for other believers.126 Love for God and love for one another are inextricably linked in that one’s abstract love for the invisible God is expressed by one’s concrete love for the fellow believer who is visible. The implication is that the outward or centrifugal direction of love is not simply the love of believers towards fellow believers but, indirectly, also towards the world because no one has seen God (1 John 4:12), but he can be ‘seen’ (i.e. 124. Contra Lieu, who claims that 1 John does not have an articulated understanding of the Spirit and hence it would be wrong here to consider the idea of the Spirit as a personal form of the presence of God, such as is developed in John’s Gospel (Ibid., 186–87). While Lieu speaks of the experience of God’s spirit, I contend that John is thinking of the experience of God himself through the Spirit. 125. See also Segovia, Love Relationships, 256 n. 137. Virtually all scholars hold that the reference of ἐκεῖνος in 1 John 4:17 is Jesus: for example, Schulz, Nachfolgen und Nachahmen, 302; Wengst, Brief des Johannes, 192–93; Klauck, Johannesbrief, 270; Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 97; Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 88; Lieu, I, II & III John, 194; Schnelle, Johannesbriefe, 157. 126. Cf. the exhortation to love in action rather than words in 1 John 3:18. See also Jesus’ challenge to the Torah scholars regarding what is easier to say (but more difficult to put in action) and his authority to act as God on the earth in Mark 2:9-10.

120

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

experienced) through the love that is tangible among believers (cf. John 13:35; 17:21-26).127 John effectively stresses that there must be a mimetic correspondence between the believer on earth and God in heaven in that the believer must reflect God’s nature through tangible acts of love. In their mimesis of God’s love, believers provide a visible, concrete expression on earth of who God is.128 The logical conclusion is that whoever claims to love God must (the ἵνα with the subjunctive has an imperative force) love their fellow believer also (1 John 4:21). Moreover, behaviour affirms (or, conversely, negates) status because only those who love belong to God (cf. 1 John 3:10; 4:7). 4.3.5 The Scope of the Recipients of the Love Command (and Other Forms  of Mimesis) One issue that we must discuss is the scope of the recipients of the love command.129 By this I do not mean those who receive and actualize the love command (these are believers) but those who are the intended objects or beneficiaries of the love command. This relates to the referent of ἀλλήλων in the command ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλων in 13:34.130 The same applies to the footwashing episode where Jesus commands his disciples ἀλλήλων νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας (13:14). Hence, when Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet and to love one another, we must ask to whom such service and love should be extended. Since ἀλλήλων is a reciprocal pronoun, the referent seems to be fellow believers or members of God’s family.131 This idea is strengthened by the use of other ingroup language such as 127. Although in a different context and not referring to mimesis, Marxen astutely observes that ‘those who see the disciples’ love of one another and live this love of one another as they see the disciples live it, can experience, while living this love of one another, that they are not living their own love but rather are living the love that God has brought into the world through the Son. They can experience this while loving one another.’ (New Testament Foundations, 297 (original emphasis)). Witherington also recognizes the outward direction of love: ‘Real love is inherently other-directed and so is completed in us when we give it away’ (Indelible Image, 499). For a detailed treatment of the ‘missional’ dimension of love, see Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 329–54. 128. Just as Jesus was God’s representative on earth (e.g. John 1:18), so believers are now the representatives of God and Jesus on earth. See also Hirsch-Luipold, ‘Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur’, 305–7. Contra Houlden, who claims that ‘for John the believer has no duties towards “the world”’ (Ethics in the New Testament, 36). 129. For more detailed discussions of the scope of the Johannine love command, see Augenstein, Liebesgebot, 11–21; Labahn, ‘“It’s Only Love”’, 22–27; Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 47–51; Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John, 5–9, 203–10. 130. This also relates to other Johannine texts (15:12, 17; 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11-12; 2 John 5) where the love command ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλων occurs. 131. Regarding the use of ἀλλήλων, van der Watt observes that where this term is linked to love in antiquity, the context is virtually always that of family or friends in order to express ‘an egalitarian relationship expecting common reciprocation within that particular

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

121

ἀδελφός (‘brother’, i.e. fellow believer), τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ (‘children of God’) and φίλος (‘friend’) in the context of the love command (15:13; 1 John 2:8-11; 3:10-17; 4:20-21).132 However, while the mimetic acts of service and love are intended for the community of believers, it does not imply an inward or sectarian outlook.133 At the same time, we cannot simply assume that beneficiaries of these actions can be anyone; this must be argued for. In what follows, I present a threefold argument that John or Jesus did intend a broader group of recipients concerning the mimetic acts of service and love than just the community of believers. First, Jesus did wash Judas’s feet although he had already been identified as an outsider (6:70-71; 13:2). While one could argue that Judas was an outsider and the footwashing did not benefit him (13:10-11), and hence we should not extend humble service to outsiders, this misses the point. Judas was a particular kind of outsider, namely an apostate – someone who was with Jesus, then became disloyal and joined the opposition. Judas had come under the influence of the devil and imitated the devil’s behaviour (6:71; 12:5-6; 13:2, 27), so he had moved from being insider to outsider (13:30). The point is that Jesus extends his salvific service to everyone and does not exclude anyone.134 That Jesus’ salvific service does not benefit everyone to whom it is offered is another issue. Potential rejection or lack of response is insufficient reason for not extending acts of service and love to people. Second, John 13:35 indicates that the love command has an effect beyond the community of faith. Outsiders will know that believers belong to Jesus when they are able to observe a love demonstrated among believers. A visible, tangible love thus testifies to outsiders regarding the reality of the community of Jesus followers or the divine family. Put succinctly, ἀγαπᾶν ἀλλήλων (insider-love) benefits πάντες (outsiders).135 This love among believers is the shared love of the Father and Son extended to believers, now made visible to the world, so that others may accept this divine love and become part of God’s family (1 John 4:9-10, 16). Indeed, the Johannine concept of love clearly has a cosmic scope: God demonstrated his love group’ (‘Ethics and Ethos’, 159; see also Michael Wolter, ‘Die ethische Identität christlicher Gemeinden in neutestamentlicher Zeit’, in Woran Orientiert Sich Ethik?, ed. Wilfried Härle and Reiner Preul, MJT 13 (Marburg: Elwert, 2001), 84–86). 132. Differently, Schrage states cautiously that ‘everyone is “potentially” included in “one another”’ (Ethics of the New Testament, 318). Others even argue that the term ‘brother’ in 1 John is sometimes synonymous for ‘neighbour’ (Bultmann, Johannine Epistles, 28; Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 110–14; Furnish, Love Command, 152–54). While I am sympathetic to these views, they seem textually untenable. 133. The setting of Jesus’ farewell discourses in which the mimetic imperatives to serve and love occur only means that believers are to carry out these acts but this private setting does not necessarily imply that the recipients are only believers. 134. Craig R. Koester even states that the presence of Judas at the footwashing scene ‘assumes that one’s enemies may be within one’s own community’ (The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 195). 135. See also Labahn, ‘“It’s Only Love”’, 22.

122

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

for the world by giving up his Son as the means for salvation (3:16; 1 John 4:9-10); Jesus loves the world in that he gives up his life in order to provide life for the world (6:51; 1 John 3:16). So, it naturally follows that the believer’s love for fellow believers must also have an outward aspect.136 At first glance, there appears to be a tension in the Johannine writings regarding the central concept of love. On the one hand, the love that the Father and Son share is not just private but is extended to outsiders. On the other hand, Jesus’ command to love one another in the farewell discourses and John’s in his first letter are intended to regulate the life of the community of believers. However, this tension is resolved if we recognize that the tangible love in the community of believers on earth is meant to visibly manifest the love of the invisible God in heaven (1 John 4:12, 17; see also Section 4.3.4). Third, for John, mimesis has a centrifugal effect. In Chapter 3, we learnt that the Son–Father mimesis occurs for the sake of others so that through mimetic acts such as sending, speaking, giving life and so on, Jesus makes God known to people and extends to them divine benefits such as life, love and salvific truth. It would then be very odd if the believer–Jesus mimesis does not have this outward direction and the believers’ mimetic activities only benefits the community of believers. Instead, it is logical that the believer–Jesus mimesis also has an outward aspect in that various mimetic acts are done not just for the sake of believers but also for others. Indeed, we have seen that believers’ imitating Jesus by loving one another also has an outward dimension. In addition, the purpose of believers’ being sent into the world just as Jesus was sent (17:18; 20:21), is to testify about Jesus (15:27) and continue his life-giving mission (believers are derivative sources of life in imitation of Jesus as the source of life (7:38)) so that people may come to believe (17:20). Likewise, the mimetic unity among believers (their unity is modelled on the unity of the Father and Son) attests to outsiders that Jesus is sent by God, that he is God’s authorized agent (17:21). To believe that Jesus is sent by God is part of reaching a saving faith (5:37-38; 6:27-29; 17:8). It thus seems reasonable to conclude that John and Jesus intended the mimetic acts of service and love primarily for the community of faith but that a broader group of recipients should not be excluded. If certain aspects of the mimetic behaviour of believers benefits outsiders (to be sent, to be one), then other mimetic acts, such as service and love, could arguably be extended to outsiders. While John focuses on the mimetic dynamics within the divine family, by no means does he deny that such behaviour should be extended to outsiders. As Verhey admits, ‘The commandment to love in John focuses on relations within the community. But a focus is not necessarily a restriction. The argument that John restricts love to members of the community is finally an argument from silence.’137 As to why John 136. See also Rainbow, Johannine Theology, 335. 137. Verhey, Reversal, 144 (original emphasis). While Sanders allows for a love for outsiders, he views it as restricted, and is almost cynical: ‘The love that reaches beyond the congregation thinks of the welfare of the “world” only in terms of bringing the neighbor to faith – nothing else’ (Ethics in the New Testament, 96). He then continues, calling the apparent paradox of limited love for the neighbour and unlimited love for fellow believers

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

123

or Jesus indicates that some forms of mimesis are directed primarily to members of the divine family, I can think of four reasons.138 First, these mimetic acts of humble service and sacrificial love remind believers of Jesus as the ultimate exemplar of these acts and probably motivates appropriate moral behaviour in the divine family. Second, if mimesis has a mediatory aspect, these mimetic acts guarantee the continued presence of Jesus and access to various divine benefits or goods in the community of faith. Third, such mimetic behaviour strengthens relationships among the members of God’s family.139 Four, believers should first learn or practise serving and loving fellow believers before they can extend such demanding ethics beyond their circle. John’s focus on how believers should exist and behave in God’s family is not in tension with the cosmic scope of his narrative. 4.3.6 Conclusion Our central question was how believers can actualize (i.e. realize in action) Jesus’ ethical imperative ‘to love one another’. I have argued that the love command is actualized through mimesis. The Johannine concept of mimesis in relation to the love command suggests that Jesus’ own love for the disciples is the basis (ὑπόδειγμα), motivation and empowerment for believers to imitate Jesus by loving one another. In fact, in the act of mimesis, believers very likely experience Jesus’ love afresh in order to extend it to others – first to fellow believers but also to those outside the Christian group.140 Hence, the love command is actualized ‘a crazy, dual way of behaving toward one’s fellow men’ (Ethics in the New Testament, 98). In contrast, Siegfried Schulz contends that the Old Testament love command for the neighbour and the new love command for fellow believers form a synthesis rather than an antithesis (Neutestamentliche Ethik, 498–99, 526–27). Others who contend that the Johannine love command is not restricted to believers but also concerns outsiders, include Keener, Gospel of John, 926; Popkes, Theologie der Liebe Gottes, 264–72, 316–54; Thyen, Johannesevangelium, 606–7; Koester, Word of Life, 194–95; Frey, ‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 201, 203; Rainbow, Johannine Theology, 335, 381; Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John, 205–9; Maarten J.J. Menken, ‘Envoys of God’s Envoy: On the Johannine Communities’, in idem, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles, 69. 138. For socio-historical explanations regarding the apparent limitation of the love command to a Johannine group of Christians, see Frey, ‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 174–94; Moloney, Love in the Gospel of John, 203–10. 139. Koester calls the love command a ‘community-building commandment’ (Word of Life, 194). Likewise, Malina and Rohrbaugh stress that in ancient Mediterranean culture, love had connotations of attachment or loyalty to a group: ‘The phrase “love one another” presumes the social glue that binds one person to another. . . . This bond of mutual loyalty is the social, externally manifested, emotionally rooted behaviour of commitment and solidarity.’ (Gospel of John, 228). Keener also notes that ‘love is partly cohesiveness to the community’ (Gospel of John, 923). 140. See also Schnelle, who remarks that the disciples (and the church) can remain connected with the departing Jesus through the love command because ‘Indem in der

124

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

through mimesis in the context of the believer’s relationship with Jesus where they continually experience the divine love. The mimetic love act has three main characteristics: (i) it must be a sacrificial and limitless act of self-giving; (ii) it must be a concrete, tangible, observable act; (iii) it must be a truthful act – it should reflect the true nature of divine love.141 Why did Jesus give the love command? I can think of two reasons. First, love functions as an important identity marker in that the expression of love shows that one truly belongs to God – behaviour authenticates status. The practice of love is one of the primary characteristics of acceptable family behaviour – it reflects the heart of the relationship between God and Jesus and shows that one belongs to God’s family.142 Second, the practice of love has a missional or salvific dimension because it provides a concrete expression of God’s love on earth that may attract others to God. Since God is unseen, his love is to be ‘seen’, that is, experienced, in the believers’ behaviour to one another as a testimony to the world (cf. John 17:20). For John, love has a salvific connotation because it was God’s love for the world that caused him to send his Son to save the world (3:16-18), and it was Jesus’ love for the sheep that caused him to lay down his life in order to provide them with life. In a similar way, the believer’s mimesis of Jesus’ love command has a potentially salvific effect. In the re-enactment of Jesus’ ὑπόδειγμα, the imitator re-actualizes Jesus’ love for the beneficiary, who then experiences Jesus for himself. This, in turn, may lead to accepting Jesus and pledging allegiance to him. In sum, actualizing Jesus’ love command through mimesis thus serves two main causes. First, it is a vital identity marker of the members of God’s family. Second, it provides a concrete expression of God’s love on earth, and this tangible testimony may attract others to know and experience God for themselves. It should be noted that, with regard to the footwashing and the love command, Jesus does not seek reciprocal behaviour from his followers but mimetic behaviour. They are not commanded to wash Jesus’ feet or to return his love but to extend humble service and love to one another (ἀλλήλων (13:14, 34)), and by extension to others outside their community.143 If mimesis has a mediatory aspect where people can experience Jesus’ sacrificial and saving love for themselves, the mimetic behaviour of believers activates a chain of divine benefits for both fellow believers and others. This detailed study of the mimetic concept of Johannine love opens up further lines of enquiry. First, we must consider the importance of mimesis for Johannine Gemeinde die Liebestat Jesu als Bruderliebe Gestalt gewinnt, ist Jesu einmaliger Dienst im Handeln der Glaubenden gegenwärtig’ (Evangelium nach Johannes, 249). 141. Van der Watt identifies self-giving and obedience as the two central elements of love (‘Ethics and Ethos’, 166). 142. According to Burridge, ever since Tertullian’s famous pronouncement, ‘See how these Christians love one another’ (Apology 39.7), the visible presence of love among Christians has remained the ‘acid test’ (Imitating Jesus, 328). 143. See also Michaels, Gospel of John, 760. Contra van der Watt, who views the love command only as reciprocal (‘Ethics and Ethos’, 159–65).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

125

ethics. Even though the love command is not the sole Johannine ethic, it certainly remains central, and if mimesis is the primary mode of behaviour by which believers can actualize Jesus’ love command, then mimesis could be central to Johannine ethics at large.144 It may well be that, for John, mimesis answers both the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of ethics, indicating not merely what believers should do but also how they can demonstrate proper conduct. We will explore this idea in Chapter 5. Second, we must probe further into the mechanics of mimesis. Although we have answered how Jesus’ love command can be carried out (through mimesis), this simply raises the question of how this mimesis occurs. After all, obeying the love command requires a challenging volitional act and may even demand one’s life! This naturally begs the question, ‘Who or what empowers for such mimesis?’ Chapter 6 will be dedicated to answering this.

4.4 Existential Mimesis The previous sections explored mimesis with respect to how the believer might emulate Jesus through actions, which we might call ‘performative mimesis’. However, the Johannine literature also contains examples of mimesis where the believer imitates Jesus in a particular state of existence or being through the use of the verb εἶναι. Such ‘existential mimesis’ appears in both the Gospel and 1 John. In the Gospel, most occurrences of existential mimesis are concentrated in John 17. Jesus’ prayer for his disciples and future believers, recorded in 17:6-26, contains a cluster of no less than five forms of existential mimesis: to be one (17:11, 22); not to be of the world (17:14, 16); to be sent (17:18; cf. 20:21); to be in the Father and Son (17:21); to be where Jesus is (17:24; cf. 12:26; 14:3). In 1 John, we find three occurrences of existential mimesis: to be like Jesus (1 John 3:2); to be righteous (1 John 3:7); to be in the world (1 John 4:17). We will now examine these forms of mimesis. 4.4.1 Existential Mimesis in John 17 To Be One. Both in 17:11 and 17:22, Jesus uses the near identical phrase ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν (‘that they may be one just as we are one’) to describe the unity that he desires among believers. The comparative conjunction καθώς indicates that the oneness or unity among believers is patterned on the oneness or unity of the Father and Son (cf. 10:30).145 Thus, 17:11, 22 contain a mimetic construction

144. Even though Schrage does not use the terms ‘mimesis’ and ‘imitation’, he points in the right direction when he concludes, ‘Conformity to Christ and to his love determines the entire way Christians live’ (Ethics of the New Testament, 308). 145. Jesus’ claim that he and the Father are ‘one’ may be a modification of Israel’s Shema in Deut 6:4 (Keener, Gospel of John, 826), thus showing his awareness of being included in the divine identity (see also Chapter 3, n. 18). One could object, however, because εἷς in Deut 6:4 LXX is masculine whereas ἕν in 10:30 is neuter, so ontological unity is probably not

126

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

indicating that the unity among believers is an imitation of the unity in the Godhead.146 I suggest that while the expression εἶναι ἕν (‘to be one’) is primarily functional or relational language for the intimate relationship between the Father, Son and believer, an ontological dimension in terms of a mystical union cannot be ruled out.147 Indeed, using the category of ‘relational ontology’, 17:11, 22 speaks of a quasi-literal union between the believer and God (see the Excursus below). The significance of understanding the mimetic union among believers in terms of relational ontology is that John depicts this reality not so much in either static, ontological or fluid, relational categories, but as a dynamic, transformative communion or relationship, which affects both the believers’ identity and behaviour, both their being and doing in the world.148 The unity among believers and with the Father and Son is a tangible unity of love that can be observed by outsiders; it is a testimony to the world (17:23; cf. 17:21; 13:35).149 Excursus: The Johannine Language of ‘Oneness’ and ‘Indwelling’ We must determine the nature of John’s language of ‘oneness’ (εἶναι ἕν) in 17:11, 22 and ‘indwelling’ (εἶναι ἐν) in 17:21 (see below) since this language is used for mimetic constructions. Should we understand the idea that the Father and Son are one with, and indwell, the believer as literal or metaphorical (that is, nonliteral)? On the one hand, it seems absurd to take this literally, as if the Father and Son can be physically located in a believer. On the other hand, the idea of divine indwelling is not so ethereal or intangible that we should dismiss a literal sense altogether. Using different categories, we may ask whether John’s concept of oneness and indwelling is relational or ontological language. I contend that it is both. In older theories, a phrase is either literal or metaphorical. To avoid misunderstanding, the distinction is not between literal=real and metaphorical=unreal. Literal and metaphorical expressions are simply two different linguistic ways to speak of reality. While we could immediately infer that John’s indwelling language cannot be literal – no one expects to find Jesus in view in John. In 1 Cor 8:6, referring to εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ and εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός it is more certain that Paul intends a deliberate modification of the Shema. 146. See also Bultmann’s assertion, ‘The paradigm and basis for the community’s oneness lies in the oneness of the Revealer with the Father’ (Gospel of John, 503). For a detailed discussion of the Johannine oneness motif, see Richard Bauckham, Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), 21–41. However, while Bauckham notes that καθώς is a favourite Johannine word, he merely understands it in terms of analogy rather than mimesis (Gospel of Glory, 34–35). 147. Contra van der Watt, who takes such language as purely functional and does not allow for a reference to a mystical union (Family of the King, 289–90). 148. See also Tinsley, who speaks of the union of the believer and Jesus in terms of a mimesis of the ‘mystical’ union between the Father and Son (Imitation of God, 131–32). 149. See also D. Moody Smith, John, ANTC (Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 316–17; Schnelle, Evangelium nach Johannes, 284; Wilckens, Evangelium nach Johannes, 266–67; Zumstein, Évangile selon Saint Jean, 2:183–85.

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

127

physically in people – to conclude that it must therefore be metaphorical is not accurate either. Noting the problems with the literal/metaphorical binary that scholars typically use, David Aaron has suggested a ‘continuum of meaning’ with degrees of figurative language or metaphoricalness – ranging from literal meaning to ascription to weakly figurative to strongly figurative to nonsense.150 For example, to view Jesus’ assertion that he is ‘the bread of life’ as literal would be absurd, and hence it is a strong metaphorical phrase. However, an expression such as Jesus abiding or being ‘in’ the believer is somehow more ambiguous. While no one expects to find Jesus physically in the believer, the phrase is not so ambiguous or absurd that we must reject a literal sense entirely and demand a metaphorical sense. It is unlikely, on Aaron’s continuum of meaning, that the terms ‘to be one’ and ‘to be in’ literally mean believers are divine (a form of theosis or deification) or that the Father, Son and believer are identical or physically inside one another.151 However, it is just as unlikely that these terms are such strong metaphorical assertions that they only denote closeness of relationship. Instead, I suggest that this language is ‘ascriptive’ or ‘quasi-literal’, indicating a mystical, divine communion that affects the believer at every level. Using Aaron’s meaning continuum, I put the metaphorical strength of the Father and Son ‘indwelling’ the believer as ‘weakly figurative’ or ‘quasi-literal’. While the believer may not be indwelled by, or one with, God ontologically (the believer does not share the divine essence), a divine indwelling or unity in terms of an intimate relationship with God can still be viewed in a quasi-literal or mystical sphere. Although the ‘indwelling’ of, and ‘oneness’ with, the Father and Son (through the Spirit, as 14:16-23 and 1 John 3:24; 4:13 indicate) should probably be interpreted primarily in relational rather than ontological categories, we cannot equate relational with metaphorical and ontology with literal. It is not inconceivable to perceive God indwelling the believer by means of the Spirit at a literal level; it probably has a literal sense of an intimate relationship without demanding the same literalness as possessing a physical object. For example, to say ‘I have the Spirit’ would not be very different from saying, ‘I have a spouse’ or ‘I have colleagues.’152 Although I do not have the Spirit, a spouse or colleagues in 150. David H. Aaron, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery, BRLA 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), chs. 2–6 (see esp. the diagram on p. 112). For the application of Aaron’s meaning continuum to Paul’s use of indwelling language, see Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life, 2nd ed., WUNT II/283 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 85. 151. John’s ‘oneness’ language with reference to people certainly does not refer to a hypostatic union. Only the incarnate Son, truly human and truly divine, represents a hypostatic union of two natures. The ‘oneness’ language does not refer to ontology/ substance because then the believer would share the divine essence and cross the creator/ creation divide. John is not even speaking of the Father and Son sharing the same divine essence – these are concepts developed by the later church. 152. See also the phrase ὁ ἔχων τὸν υἱόν in 1 John 5:12 as a circumlocution for the believer having a relationship with Jesus.

128

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

the same way as I possess, for example, a key, there is nonetheless a literal sense to my relationship with them. Using the category of relational ontology (over against substance ontology), I suggest what John has in mind is a mystical union between the believer and God.153

Not to Be of the World. In 17:14 and 17:16, the identical phrase οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου shows that Jesus’ followers no longer have their origins in this world. Any person, by physical birth, belongs to the natural world or realm below, but a birth of God or the Spirit propels them into the world of God or realm above (1:13; 3:5). The preposition ἐκ frequently denotes origin in John’s Gospel, where John’s dualistic scheme depicts a contrast between those who are ἐκ θεοῦ/πνεύματος (1:13; 3:5) and those who are ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (8:23) or ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου/πονηροῦ.154 Thus, believers ‘imitate’ or mirror Jesus’ existence, in that they are no longer ἐκ the world because they have become ἐκ God. The believer’s ‘transfer’ from the world below to the world above is an existential relocation patterned on that of the incarnation but in opposite direction. In the incarnation, the pre-existent Logos, who was both ‘in’ and ‘of ’ the world above, came to this world in bodily form in order to be ‘in’ the world below but remaining ‘of ’ the world above so that people, who are both ‘in’ and ‘of ’ the world below, could also be ‘in’ the world below but ‘of ’ the world above in imitation of him. To Be Sent. The καθώς . . . καί construction in 17:18 (καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον) indicates a mimesis where Jesus’ sending of the disciples into the world imitates God’s sending of Jesus into the world (cf. 20:21). In other words, 17:18 and 20:21 depict a mimetic agency in that just as Jesus is God’s agent in the world, so the believers are Jesus’ agents 153. The Eastern Orthodox Church also advocates the concept of relational ontology. John D. Zizioulas, for example, fervently argues for an understanding of God as ‘persons in communion’. He is influenced by the Cappadocian father St Basil the Great, who preferred to speak about God using the ontological category of communion (κοινωνία) rather than that of substance (οὐσία): ‘The nature of God is communion’ (Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 134). Similarly, P.M. Collins remarks regarding the Cappadocian fathers’ understanding of the Godhead: ‘The communion of the Godhead is therefore understood in terms of an identity of ousia, which is differentiated among the three persons. The koinōnia of the persons is the shared common ousia’ (Trinitarian Theology: West and East. Karl Barth, the Cappadocian Fathers, and John Zizioulas (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 165). See also Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996), ch. 1; Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 309. 154. Van der Watt also notes the contrasts of origin – οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are ἐκ the world/ devil (8:23, 44) while Jesus and believers are ἐκ above/God (8:23, 42, 47). People’s origin determines their group affiliation and consequently their actions towards that group. Thus, a child’s behaviour is shaped by his or her identity, which is established at birth (Family of the King, 192, 199–200).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

129

in the world. Although the active construction in Greek indicates a performative mimesis – Jesus’ act of sending the disciples imitates the Father’s act of sending him – the corollary is an implied existential mimesis where the disciples find themselves in the same situation Jesus was in. In other words, there is a mimetic agency chain of the disciples’ being sent by Jesus, who in turn is being sent by the Father. The significance of this mimetic construction is that the disciples are ultimately God’s ambassadors in the world and might have the same effect Jesus had as God’s first agent. Indeed, Jesus indicates in 17:20 that people will believe in him based on the disciples’ words, which probably refers to their Spirit-informed testimony (15:26-27). It would probably not be too wide off the mark to say that just as Jesus’ words are Spirit-filled and life-giving (6:63), so the disciples’ words will be. Yet, here too the mimesis has elements of continuity and discontinuity: on the one hand, the disciples’ sending into the world is modelled on Jesus’ sending; on the other hand, the Son was sent into the world to complete the Father’s work whereas the disciples ‘merely’ testify about this finished work. To Be in the Father and Son. In 17:21a, Jesus expresses his desire for unity among believers (ἵνα πάντες ἓν ὦσιν) – both present and future. In 17:21b, Jesus expands on this pithy phrase by means of a mimetic construction: just as the Father and Son indwell each other, so may all believers also indwell the Father and Son (καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν).155 The expression ‘person A being “in” person B’ indicates closeness of relationship rather than that person A exists or resides physically in person B (see the Excursus above). John 17:2123 clarifies that ‘to be one’ and ‘to be in’ are synonymous existential concepts – to be ‘one’ with the Father and Son is to be ‘in’ them. This appears to be a kind of existential mimesis where the indwelling of believers by the Father and Son is patterned on and part of the unity between the Father and Son.156 The existential concepts of oneness and indwelling go to the heart of who believers are because their identities are being shaped as they share in the divine identity. Identity has to do with who one is – a notion of self (personhood), or a set of qualities, values, characteristics and behaviour that distinguishes one person from another. The concept of communion best captures the essence of God’s identity. The literal term κοινωνία occurs only in 1 John 1:3-7, to denote the communion that exists between the Father and Son, in which the believer partakes.157 The concept of 155. Just as in 17:22-23, the divine indwelling/unity mentioned in 17:21 must be concrete because it can evoke belief from the world. Likewise, Moloney notes a ‘missionary chain’ because the purpose of unity among believers, which is patterned on the unity between the Father and Son, is that the world may believe (Love in the Gospel of John, 130). We must also note that the Johannine concept of indwelling and oneness is both reciprocal and mimetic. 156. The Spirit will also indwell the believer (14:17). In fact, the Father and Son will indwell the believer by means of the Spirit (14:23). 157. Max Turner explains that John’s usage of κοινωνία as ‘personal fellowship with someone’ is rather unique in the New Testament. While κοινωνία usually refers to participation, in 1 John the Bible speaks for the first time of a divine–human κοινωνία. The use of μετά indicates that believers are partners with the Father and Son. Kοινωνία

130

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

communion, however, is widespread in the Johannine literature through the concepts of oneness/unity and indwelling. As discussed in the Excursus above, it is unlikely, on Aaron’s continuum of meaning, that the terms ‘to be one’ and ‘to be in’ literally mean believers are divine (a form of theosis or deification) or that the Father, Son and believer are identical or physically inside one another. However, it is equally unlikely that these terms are merely metaphorical assertions that only denote closeness of relationship. Instead, I suggested that this language is ‘ascriptive’ or ‘quasi-literal’, indicating a mystical, divine communion that affects the believer at every level. Essentially, it would be safe to conclude that communion (fellowship, oneness, unity, indwelling) appears to be the most significant identity marker of the divine family, and mimesis an important mechanism through which identity is shaped. I will explain briefly but a more substantial discussion is found in Section 5.2. The essential aspect of the divine identity is communion and when we examine the Johannine writings we find that this divine communion is characterized by or consists of the qualities or properties of life, light, love, truth and honour (see also Section 3.1.1). This relationship of life, light, love, truth and honour between the Father and Son is not exclusive; believers are drawn into this divine relationship through a birth ‘from above’ and participate in the divine identity as ‘children of God’ and Jesus’ ‘siblings’ (see the phrase οἱ ἀδελφοὶ μου in 20:17). Believers do not so much possess this divine identity as they participate or share in it by virtue of their union with God. As believers share in the divine identity of a perpetual communion of life, light, love, truth and honour, it is only natural that this communion will affect the believers and transform them in their thinking and behaviour. Thus, the believers’ identity is shaped along the lines of the divine identity because sharing in the divine identity has a transformative effect. To Be Where Jesus Is. In 17:24, Jesus expresses the desire that all future believers will also be where he is (ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι ὦσιν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ). The word καί, here, does not function as a coordinating conjunction (‘and’) but as an adverb (‘also’). Since Jesus does not clarify, the reader may wonder what location ὅπου refers to. In addition to 17:24, the phrase ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγώ also occurs in 7:34, 36; 12:26; 14:3, with a similar mimetic construction in the latter two references. The mimetic construction in 12:26, ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται, in the context of 12:24-25, expresses the idea that believers should imitate Jesus in sacrificial service. Just as Jesus positions himself to serve humanity (with the cross as the place of ultimate service), so believers must seek to serve others sacrificially.158 However, it is the mimetic construction in 14:3, ‘that where I am, with the Father and the Son therefore means the mutual sharing of believers in a personal communion with the Father and the Son. 1 John thus gives κοινωνία a theocentric dimension and introduces the idea of personal fellowship with God (‘The Churches of the Johannine Letters as Communities of “Trinitarian” Koinōnia’, in The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler, ed. W. Ma and R.P. Menzies, JPTSup 24 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 53–55). 158. See also Brown, who says that 12:25-26 constitutes ‘a call for a willingness to imitate Jesus in suffering and death’ (Gospel according to John, 1:475).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

131

they may also be’ (ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε), that particularly sheds light on the referent of ὅπου. Usually, 14:2-3 is taken to mean an eschatological, heavenly abode where believers will be re-united with Jesus after death.159 In light of John’s realized eschatology, however, I contend that 14:2-3 refers to God’s dwelling on earth which Jesus makes ready for believers through his death and resurrection.160 Let me explain. The terms οἶκός and οἰκία can mean ‘house’ or ‘household’. While οἶκός (τοῦ πατρός μου) in 2:16 refers to God’s house, that is the temple, οἰκία in 8:35 refers to God’s household or family where ‘sons’, that is believers, have a permanent place. In 14:2, οἰκία (τοῦ πατρός μου) probably also refers to God’s household or family rather than house/heaven. This idea gains strength when we consider the term μονή (‘dwelling place’), which occurs in John’s Gospel only in 14:2 and in 14:23. In the latter verse, Jesus promises that he and the Father will make their μονή with believers, and this divine indwelling will most likely come about by means of the coming Spirit (14:16-17). In which case, Jesus’ enigmatic saying in 14:3 that he is leaving to prepare a place for his followers and will return to take them with him is a reference to the cross and resurrection. Via the cross, Jesus prepares a permanent place for his followers, and therefore, after the resurrection, he can, for the first time, call them ‘brothers’ (20:17) and give them the Spirit to seal their family membership (20:22).161 I suggest, therefore, that the mimetic expression that believers will be in the same place where Jesus is, refers to their place in God’s family.162 Just as Jesus is part of God’s household, so believers will reside in that household. Moreover, the believers’ existence in God’s family should be characterized by a life of sacrificial service in imitation of Jesus (12:24-26; cf. 13:15).

159. For example, Steven M. Bryan, ‘The Eschatological Temple in John 14’, BBR 15 (2005): 187–98. Most commentators hold this view. 160. See Mary L. Coloe, Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007), 108–12, 145–48; Keener, Gospel of John, 932–39. While Brown contends that 14:2-3 referred originally to a heavenly abode, he considers a secondary reference to God’s family when these verses are aligned with the indwelling theme of John 14 (Gospel according to John, 2:626–27). 161. For the giving of the Spirit in John, see Cornelis Bennema, ‘The Giving of the Spirit in John 19–20: Another Round’, in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner, ed. I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens and Cornelis Bennema (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 86–104. 162. Similarly, Léon-Dufour understands 12:26 in view of 14:3 and 17:24, so that Jesus’ assertion ‘where I am’ (present tense) refers to his permanent union with the Father, and the affirmation that his followers ‘will be where Jesus is’ (future tense) indicates their prospective participation in this union (Évangile selon Jean, 2:466; see also Wengst, Johannesevangelium, 65). Van der Watt observes a parallel with 13:36-38, where Peter wishes to go where Jesus goes (‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, 440–45).

132

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

4.4.2 Existential Mimesis in 1 John 3–4 To Be Like Jesus. The subject of φανερωθῇ in 1 John 3:2b is probably Jesus because he often is the subject of the passive form of φανεροῦν in this letter (1:2; 2:28; 3:5, 8). While Jesus’ being revealed in 1:2; 3:5, 8 refers to the incarnation, the reference in 2:28 is the Parousia (παρουσία) and this idea is key in the entire section 2:28–3:3. The essence of 3:2, therefore, seems clear: believers are God’s children in the present but anticipate their future existence – for only at the Parousia will they be transformed into the likeness of Christ. The difficulty is to decide on the nature of the believers’ transformation. Since mimesis is present in the immediate context (3:3 (see Section 4.5) and 3:7 (see below)), it is perhaps in view here too and indicated by the comparative adjective ὅμοιος (‘like’, ‘of the same nature’). Regarding the issue of how believers will be like Jesus at the Parousia, I suggest we should discount the idea of deification or theosis (believers becoming divine), lest the creator/creation divide will be blurred.163 Rather, the idea is to become like him in his humanity – to become truly human.164 This would not 163. Cf. the deceptive promise to Eve in the Garden – ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοί (Gen 3:5). Differently, in his examination of utopian types of religion, including Christianity, Anders Klostergaard Petersen argues that martyrdom establishes an intrinsic relationship between imitation and divinization in that the martyr’s death is the most radical form of imitation of the gods and overcomes the ontological difference between humans and gods in order to attain a higher level of existence (‘Attaining Divine Perfection through Different Forms of Imitation’, Numen 60 (2013): 7–38). 164. If one wants to use the term ‘theosis’ for the believer’s transformation, it should perhaps be understood in terms of participation in God’s life and character in order to become like God (homoiousios) rather than participation in God’s essence in order to become God (homoousios). For a similar discussion of theosis in Paul, see, Volker Rabens, ‘The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A “Western” Perspective’, in The Holy Spirit and the Church according to the New Testament, ed. Predrag Dragutinovic, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and James Buchanan Wallace, WUNT 354 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 187–220. While Brown takes the phrase ‘we will be like him’ as referring to believers being like God at the Parousia (Epistles of John, 394–95), he does not explain in what sense they will resemble God (see also Schnackenburg, Johannine Epistles, 159). Klauck also prefers the idea of likeness to God (Gottähnlichkeit) and explains it as a new God-given existence, like we find for example in 1 Cor 15:44 (Johannesbrief, 181). However, 1 Cor 15:49 explains that the believers’ likeness to Christ is in view rather than God. In addition, Schnelle aptly points out that, for John, the visio Dei is christologically defined (John 14:9) and hence 1 John 3:2 has the believers’ likeness to Jesus in view (Johannesbriefe, 116). Smalley also prefers to understand 1 John 3:2 as likeness to Jesus, but notes that since God is seen in Christ, likeness to God should not be entirely ruled out (1, 2, 3 John, 139–40). The idea of transformation through the visio Dei is widespread in Jewish and Hellenistic mystical traditions (Carlos Lévy, ‘Philo’s Ethics’, in The Cambridge Companion to Philo, ed. Adam Kamesar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 146–49, 164–67; Volker Rabens, ‘Pneuma and the Beholding of God: Reading Paul in the Context of Philonic Mystical Traditions’, in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

133

only refer to the resurrection body spoken of elsewhere in the New Testament but also to Jesus’ character displayed in his humanity – characteristics such as love, obedience, humility and so on.165 In light of the prominent Johannine dialectic between identity and behaviour, this transformation will most likely be a gradual process, starting with a person’s entry into God’s family (εἶναι τέκνον θεοῦ) and culminating at the final day (εἶναι ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ). To Be Righteous. 1 John 3:7 contains the mimetic idea that believers are (expected to be) righteous, just as he is righteous (ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος δίκαιός ἐστιν), where the comparative conjunction καθώς indicates the mimesis. Again, it is unclear whether the referent of ἐκεῖνος is God or Jesus. On the one hand, a similar phrase in 2:29 (δίκαιός ἐστιν) probably has God as subject since the last part of the verse, ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγέννηται, undoubtedly refers to people being born of God (cf. 3:9; John 1:13). On the other hand, since Jesus is the subject in 3:4-6, 8 (and probably also in 3:2b-3), he is most likely also in view in 3:7 (cf. 2:1). In which case, Jesus is the example to emulate regarding being and behaving in accordance with what God requires. Interestingly, εἶναι δίκαιός (identity) is the result of ποιεῖν τὴν δικαιοσύνην (behaviour), so that the believer imitates Jesus’ state of righteousness (existential mimesis) through the habitual practice of what is right. To Be in the World. The καθώς . . . καί construction in 1 John 4:17 expresses an existential mimesis ‘just as he is, we are also in this world’ (καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ). This verse has various interpretative difficulties (see also Section 4.3.4).166 Contra the majority of scholars, I maintain that the referent of ἐκεῖνος is God rather than Jesus.167 On the one hand, the the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, ed. Jörg Frey and John R. Levison, Ekstasis 5 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 299–312; see also Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 74–82). The Johannine idea that seeing Jesus equals seeing God (12:45; 14:9) is also reflected in other texts where the Son ‘shows’ the invisible Father to people and hence is the Father’s self-revelation (1:18; 3:32; 10:32; 12:45). Besides, as the Son imitates the Father, it is natural that those observing the Son, ‘see’ the Father. 165. The idea of believers becoming like Jesus is also present in Paul (e.g. Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:11; Phil 3:21) and Peter (2 Pet 1:4). 166. Brown, for example, notes that if the referent of ἐκεῖνος is God, it creates tension with 1 John 3:2 which states that believers will only be like God in the future, but if the referent is Jesus, the present tense suggests that Jesus is still in the world (Epistles of John, 529). While I maintain that 1 John 3:2 refers to Jesus rather than God (see the beginning of Section 4.4.2), I contend that 1 John 4:17 does not refer to the believers’ transformation at the Parousia but to their emulation of a particular aspect of God. Moreover, the phrase ‘just as he is’ does not require God’s or Jesus’ spatial location to be the earth; rather, believers should emulate and thus represent on earth the God who is in heaven. 167. In fact, Segovia is the only modern scholar who views God as the referent (Love Relationships, 256 n. 137). Centuries earlier, Reformer John Calvin commented on this verse, ‘By these words [as he is] . . . he [John] means that we in our turn are required to resemble the image of God. Therefore, what God is in heaven, He bids us be in this world.’ (The Gospel

134

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος in 1 John, in five out of seven instances, clearly refers to Jesus (2:6; 3:3, 5, 7, 16; in 5:16, the referent is sin). On the other hand, the focus throughout 1 John 4:7-21 is God rather than Jesus.168 Besides, if there is a mimetic idea in this text, the phrase ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ must be matched by a corresponding spatial location with reference to God – heaven. The mimetic idea probably revolves around God’s love as the dominant topic of the section 4:7-21 (cf. ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν in 1 John 4:8, 16). The verse can therefore be paraphrased as follows: ‘Just as God in heaven is characterized by love, so believers on earth are to be characterized by love.’ In other words, believers are to imitate God in one of his chief attributes so that this loving, invisible God can be made known on earth.169 4.4.3 Conclusion The category of existential mimesis is not an obvious one because mimesis is generally understood as active imitation rather than a state of being. However, it is not surprising when we realize that John gives equal prominence to issues pertaining to identity/character and behaviour/conduct (see further Chapter 5). Although performative mimesis remains the prominent category in the Johannine writings, existential mimesis nevertheless accounts for a third of all mimetic occurrences (see Section 2.3). We noted that the Johannine concept of existential mimesis as far as it relates to people comprises no less than eight different modes of being: to be one; to be not of the world; to be sent; to be in God; to be where Jesus is; to be like Jesus; to be righteous; to be in the world. These modes of being can be aggregated in three clusters. Relationally, believers are where Jesus is (in God’s family), which means being in (relationship with) God and being united with him and fellow believers. Missionally, believers are not of the world, yet they are sent into the according to St John 11–21 and the First Epistle of John, trans. T.H.L. Parker (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1961), 295). C. Clifton Black seems to lean towards the idea of God as referent, when he writes that Christians are ‘God’s (or Christ’s) exemplary agents of love in a loveless world’ (‘1, 2, and 3 John’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, ed. Leander E. Keck et al., Vol. 12 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 432). Robert W. Yarbrough is undecided (1–3 John, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 259). 168. While most scholars acknowledge that God is the grammatical subject in vv. 16-21, they nevertheless opt for Jesus as the referent of ἐκεῖνος because previous occurrences of ἐκεῖνος in 1 John refer to Jesus. However, even in 1 John not all occurrences of ἐκεῖνος refer to Jesus (see 1 John 5:16). Second, in John’s Gospel, ἐκεῖνος can refer, for example, to God (1:18; 5:19), Jesus (1:8; 5:11) or the Spirit (14:26; 15:26). Third, I maintain that the immediate context should determine the referent, and besides the fact that ὁ θεός in v. 16 is the immediate antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun ἐκεῖνος, God is the only divine person mentioned throughout 4:16-21. 169. If, however, the referent is Jesus, the mimetic idea is most likely that just as Jesus is in the Father’s love, so are believers in Jesus’ love (see our discussion of the main options in Section 2.2 under category 3).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

135

world to be representatives of God’s love in the world. Existentially, in imitation of Jesus, believers are expected to be righteous (through right behaviour), and by extrapolation develop other characteristics that God approves of, and eventually be transformed into the true humanity of Jesus. The significance of the category of existential mimesis is that John envisages the believers’ existence to be patterned on the person of Jesus. Existential mimesis is transformational in that the believer’s life and character are being shaped by that of the Father and Son. We will examine this idea further in Chapter 5.

4.5 Other Instances of the Believer–Jesus Mimesis There are six further instances of the believer–Jesus mimesis in the Johannine literature that we will briefly examine for the sake of being thorough. Two instances (‘to live’ and ‘to know’) fall into a category I call ‘quasi-existential mimesis’ because they refer not so much to actions that believers perform but to a particular state that believers are in or have access to by virtue of their participation in a relationship with God. The other four instances (‘to obey’, ‘to do Jesus’ works’, ‘to behave’ and ‘to purify oneself ’) are aimed at performative mimesis. To Live or Be Alive. In the bread-of-life discourse, we find in 6:57 the first occurrence of the believer–Jesus mimesis in the Johannine literature through the common καθώς . . . καί construction: ‘Just . . . as I live because of the Father, the one who eats me will also live because of me’ (καθὼς . . . ἐγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι᾽ ἐμέ). Jesus indicates that the believer’s life on account of him imitates the divine reality of his own life on account of the Father. This latter idea harks back to 5:21, 26 where Jesus’ divine prerogative to have and give life imitates the Father’s. So, 6:57 clarifies that believers live, that is share in the divine life, (because Jesus grants them that; cf. 6:35, 53), just as Jesus lives (because the Father granted him that). There is, in fact, a double mimesis: (i) the believer ‘has’ life as Jesus does, with the difference that the believer has a share in the life that Jesus has in himself; (ii) Jesus imitates the Father in the ability to distribute or impart their shared life. John 14:19 expresses the same idea in brief mimetic form, ‘because I live, you also will live’ (ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε).170 Although the active verb ζῆν (‘to live’) points towards performative mimesis, I nevertheless categorize the mimesis in 6:57 and 14:9 as cases of quasi-existential mimesis because the idea is not so much that believers ‘have’ life in the sense of actively taking hold of it but that they are granted life by Jesus or have a share in the divine life (see also the discussion on 6:57 in Section 2.2 under category 3). In other words, the believers’ dependence on Jesus for their existence is modelled after Jesus’ dependence on the Father for his existence, albeit in a different sense.

170. While it could be argued that the primary idea is one of cause and effect, there is also a quasi-mimetic aspect in that the believers’ life is modelled on Jesus’ life (see also category 6 in Section 2.2).

136

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

As in the footwashing episode, the mimesis here does not equal cloning. While the corresponding or mimetic kernel is that the believer’s share in the divine life imitates Jesus’ share in the divine life, there is also a crucial difference in that Jesus has been granted the right to have life in himself (1:4; 5:26) while the believer only has life in a derived sense.171 Since believers do not have divine life in themselves but only as they partake in the life-giving relationship that exists between the Father and Son, the mimesis of ‘to live’ or ‘to have life’ is a quasi-existential mimesis – ‘to be alive’. Mutual Knowing. In John 10:14b-15a, a single καθώς denotes the mimesis: ‘I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father’ (γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ καὶ γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά, καθὼς γινώσκει με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα). Thus, the mutual knowledge that exists between Jesus and believers is patterned on the shared knowledge of the Father and Son. Knowledge, partially synonymous with ‘truth’ in John, is one of the main attributes that characterize the Father and Son (others are life, light, love and honour (see Section 3.1.1)), and is a salvific category. Although ‘to know’ refers to a cognitive activity, the mimetic idea here is of the believer ‘being in the know’, and hence this too is a quasi-existential mimesis. The knowledge that believers ‘have’ is that of the divine reality they have access to by virtue of being in a relationship with the Father and Son.172 As such, believers know the voice of the good Shepherd (10:4), aspects of Jesus’ identity (6:69; 16:30; 17:8), the Father (14:7), the Spirit (14:17), and the close relationship they have with the Father and Son (14:20). We should also note the tremendous claim to knowledge that Johannine believers have, expressed in the frequent phrase ‘(by this) we/you know that’ in 1 John (2:5, 18, 21; 3:5, 14-16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2, 15, 18-20). Believers thus exist in a shared state of knowledge with Jesus, modelled on the shared knowledge of the Father and Son. To Obey. In John 15:10, καθώς indicates the mimetic idea that believers should (actively) emulate Jesus’ obedience and, thus, experience (i.e. passively emulate) the divine abiding. In other words, just as (καθώς) Jesus is obedient to the Father and abides in his love, so the disciples will abide in Jesus’ love when they are 171. Although the phrase ‘to have life in himself ’ (ἔχειν ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ) is reserved for the Father and Son (5:26), it is also used for believers (6:53), but conditional on accepting Jesus. The most frequent phrase in relation to believers is ‘to have (eternal) life’, which should read, ‘to have a share in the divine life of the Father and Son’. As long as believers remain in a relationship with the Father and Son they have access to, inter alia, divine life and in that sense ‘have life in themselves’ (see also the discussion in Section 3.1.3 n. 21). Similarly, while Jesus is the source of life for people, believers can be derivative sources of life when others believe in Jesus based on believers’ Spirit-informed testimony (7:38; 15:2627; 17:20) (Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 241–42, 246–47). 172. Keener suggests that if ‘know’ is the language of covenant relationship, believers share the divine relationship in which Jesus’ relationship with the Father becomes a model for the believers’ relationship with Jesus (Gospel of John, 818).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

137

obedient to him. Jesus’ obedience is the example for the disciples to imitate so that they continue to experience Jesus’ abiding love.173 The continued access to Jesus’ love through the keeping of his commandments is not meant to be a legalistic exertion of one’s will but a mimetic act. Jesus has shown the example of obedience first and his disciples can then (and therefore) imitate him. Not surprisingly, John asserts that such obedience is not burdensome or difficult (βαρύς) for those who are born of God (1 John 5:3-4). To Do Jesus’ Works. In John 14:12, a singular adverbial καί indicates that the believer continues Jesus’ works by imitation: ‘I assure you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do’ (Ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσει). To do Jesus’ works is to do God’s life-giving works (4:34; 5:36; 9:4; 17:4). Jesus’ works function as testimony, that is, a source of knowledge about himself and the Father, and as such constitute a valid basis for authentic belief (10:25, 37-38; 14:11). Where Jesus works, God is at work and vice versa (5:17; 14:10). The believers doing the work(s) of Jesus/God refers to God continuing his salvific work in the world through believers by means of the Spirit (cf. 15:26-27; 16:8-11; 17:20). The ‘greater’ works in 14:12b is a likely reference to Jesus continuing his work through believers on a larger, worldwide scale. There is an implied mimetic chain: Jesus carries out the Father’s work, and the disciples carry out Jesus’ work. More specifically, Jesus carries out the Father’s life-giving work by imitating him because he only speaks and does what he hears and sees from the Father (see Section 3.1.2). Since the disciples have heard Jesus’ words and seen his miraculous works, it is natural to expect that they carry out Jesus’ work (which is the Father’s work) by means of mimesis. To Behave. 1 John 2:6 contains the ethical, mimetic imperative that those who claim to be Jesus’ followers (lit., ‘the one who claims to remain in him’) must pattern their conduct on that of Jesus. The imperative is indicated by ὀφείλειν (‘ought to’, ‘must’), the verb περιπατεῖν (‘to walk’, ‘to behave’) marks an ethical aspect, and the ethical imperative is presented as an act of mimesis (believers must behave just like Jesus). I contend that this is a mimetic καθώς . . . καί construction rather than a καθώς . . . οὕτως construction. Besides the uncertainty over whether οὕτως is original, καί here cannot be a coordinate conjunction (‘and’) but functions as an adverb (‘also). This implies that οὕτως is superfluous because the comparison is already established by the καθώς . . . καί construction. While the referent of μένειν ἐν αὐτῷ could be God (cf. 1 John 1:5-6), John usually has Jesus in mind (e.g. John 15:4-10; 1 John 2:28). In addition, the referent of ἐκεῖνος here is Jesus rather than God (see Chapter 2, n. 26). Finally, since περιπατεῖν (‘to walk’) is shorthand for ‘way of life’ or behaviour (cf. 1 John 1:6-7; 2:11; 2 John 4-6; 3 John 3-4), John most likely refers to Jesus’ life on earth that could be observed – and

173. While 14:15, 21 indicate that love motivates and demonstrates obedience, 15:10 conveys that obedience guarantees access to love.

138

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

hence imitated.174 Thus, by virtue of this ethical mimetic imperative, the believer is commanded to observe and imitate Jesus’ way of life (see also Jesus’ declaration ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδός in John 14:6, where ὁδός is probably also shorthand for ‘way of life’).175 The Johannine literature indicates three manifestations of the believers’ walk (of life) or conduct: (i) ‘to walk in the light’ (11:9-10; 12:35; 1 John 1:6-7), that is, to live in the realm of Jesus; (ii) ‘to walk in the truth’ (2 John 4; 3 John 3-4), that is, to act in correspondence with the divine truth, which is ultimately bound up with Jesus; (iii) ‘to walk according to his commandment(s)’ (2 John 6), that is, to show conduct that is characterized and directed by the love command. In short, believers should show a Christ-like behaviour that is characterized by light, truth and love. To Purify Oneself. 1 John 3:3 contains an exhortation for believers to purify themselves, just as (καθώς) he [God or Jesus] is pure. I suggest that this exhortation might just qualify as mimesis because while the verb ἁγνίζειν denotes an activity of believers and the cognate noun ἁγνός denotes a state of Jesus, the comparative conjunction καθώς indicates that God’s/Jesus’ (moral) purity is the example that believers are to imitate.176 After all, John could not have used the verb ἁγνίζειν in relation to God and/or Jesus who have no need to purify themselves.177 A recurring difficulty in 1 John is whether God or Jesus is in view, so also here it is difficult to decide whether the referent of αὐτός and ἐκεῖνος is God or Jesus. While God is most probably the referent in 2:29–3:2a (the use of γεννῆσαι seems decisive), 2:28 and 3:2b-8 seem to refer to Jesus (Jesus often is the subject of the passive form of 174. Georg Strecker contends that while John’s Gospel uses ἀκολουθεῖν to describe the relationship of the historical disciples and Jesus, in 1 John περιπατεῖν describes the relationship of Jesus and believers (The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 45). While this has some merit, we should not overstate the difference. ‘To follow’ Jesus in the Gospel has a broader meaning than just a literal following. At the same time, περιπατεῖν is used in the Gospel synonymously with ἀκολουθεῖν (John 6:66), or figuratively in a similar sense as in 1 John (John 8:12; 11:9-10; 12:35). 175. Connecting μένειν and περιπατεῖν, Klauck contends that abiding is not something static but a dynamic activity (Johannesbrief, 118). Klauck also remarks that ‘to walk like Jesus’ reaches its apex in the love command, with the possible consequence of losing one’s life (Ibid., 119). Besides, ‘to walk’ does not denote individual actions but ‘die Gesamtausrichtung der Existenz’ (‘the overall direction of existence’) (Schnelle, Johannesbriefe, 87). Similarly, van der Watt states, ‘Believers should structure their everyday behaviour . . . in the same way as Jesus did’ (‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 425). 176. Smalley contends that καθώς not only indicates the pattern to follow (‘just as he is pure’) but also the motivation for such imitation (‘because he is pure’) and the means for that imitation (1, 2, 3 John, 142). This coheres with our claim in 4.3.1 that Jesus’ example is the empowering and motivational basis from which believers can imitate him. 177. Nevertheless, against the background of Exod 19:10-11 (the LXX uses ἁγνίζειν) and John 17:19 (the cognate verb ἁγιάζειν is used), Brown suggests that the idea in 1 John 3:3 is of Jesus making himself holy and pure before he departs from this world and enters the divine presence (Epistles of John, 397–98).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

139

φανεροῦν in this letter (1:2; 2:28; 3:5, 8)). In which case, Jesus remains the most likely referent in 3:3.178 Besides, Jesus is also connected with the verbs ἁγιάζειν (John 17:19) and καθαρίζειν (1 John 1:7, 9), and their respective cognates ἅγιος (John 6:69) and καθαρός (John 13:10-11; 15:3), which are partially synonymous with the verb ἁγνίζειν and its cognate ἁγνός in that they overlap in the sense of moral purification or cleansing. Considering our discussion on existential mimesis in 1 John 3:2 (see Section 4.4.2), the exhortation for purity is one of the aspects that contribute to the believer’s final transformation into the likeness of Jesus at the Parousia.

4.6 Conclusion This chapter set out to explain the scope, nature and mechanics of the believer’s mimesis of Jesus and, in some instances, God.179 We noted that mimesis is both implicit and explicit in the Johannine text. For example, we found conceptual traces of mimesis in our examination of the dominant Johannine themes of discipleship and family. While one might naturally expect that following Jesus and remaining with him would include imitating him, a closer investigation showed that this is not the case. We could only infer that ἀκολουθεῖν and μένειν facilitate mimesis so that as people follow Jesus and stay with him, they are able to observe and imitate him. While there is a stronger case for mimesis in Jesus’ debate with οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι about two families and their respective fathers in John 8, it is nevertheless implicit. What this does tell us, however, is that mimesis occurs within the context of discipleship in the divine family. It is to those who have come to Jesus and pledged allegiance to him that Jesus outlines the kind of behaviour and character he expects, in which mimesis proves to be instrumental. The most explicit and elaborate evidence for the believer–Jesus mimesis in the Johannine writing is found in the footwashing pericope in John 13, and the love command in John 13, 15 and 1 John 3–4.180 John 13 proved instrumental in our

178. See also the discussion in Martin Culy, 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004), 64–71. 179. The believer–Jesus mimesis occurs in John 6:57; 12:26; 13:14, 15, 34; 14:3, 12, 19; 15:10, 12; 17:14, 16, 18, 24; 20:21; 1 John 2:6; 3:2, 3, 7, 16. The believer–God mimesis occurs in 1 John 4:11, 17, although it is debatable if the object of imitation in 1 John 4:17 is God or Jesus (see Section 4.3.4). The believer’s imitation of both the Father and Son occurs in John 10:14-15; 17:11, 21, 22b. In our estimation, John 8:38-39 constitutes a weak case of an implied believer–God mimesis (see Section 4.1.3). See also Appendix 1. 180. See also Hansjörg Schmid, who concludes that imitating Jesus is a major ethical concept in 1 John (Gegner im 1. Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem, BWANT 159 (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 248–49). For a refutation of Schmid’s argument that the opponents in 1 John are fictional, see Menken, ‘Opponents in the Johannine Epistles’, 225–29; Frey, ‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 179 n. 48.

140

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

understanding of mimesis in John. Its explicit mimetic model of observing and interpreting the example that needs imitating, and the consequent carrying out of a recontextualized mimetic act indicates that, for John, mimesis is a cognitive and creative process. We observed that mimesis is not a simplistic cloning or literal replication but a creative, truthful, tangible articulation of the original act, either in part or in whole. This mimetic model of showing–understanding–doing–being is also present in the passages where the love command occurs: (i) the disciples have seen and experienced Jesus’ love; (ii) they have to understand or interpret Jesus’ love as being a concrete act of limitless self-giving; (iii) they have to perform a tangible mimetic act of love; (iv) the actualization of Jesus’ love command through mimesis ensures they will be or abide in Jesus’ love.181 And while this mimetic model is not reiterated in its entirety elsewhere in the Johannine literature, we can occasionally detect certain aspects. For example, the disciples have probably ‘observed’ the unity of the Father and Son, that they must emulate among themselves, from hearing Jesus speak about it on numerous occasions (e.g. 10:30; 14:10; 17:21-23). In fact, when Philip asks Jesus about showing them the Father, Jesus expresses his incredulity by referring to the time the disciples spent with him during which they could have deduced that his tangible unity with the Father meant that seeing him equals seeing the Father (14:8-9; cf. 12:45). The disciples must have discerned from Jesus’ teaching that he was sent by God and was not of the world, so that when Jesus holds out these examples to them in 17:14, 16, 18 to explain their being in the world in imitation of him, they would have understood it. Or, when John reminds his readers in 1 John 2:6 that they should conduct themselves like Jesus, no explicit form of behaviour is mentioned, precisely because this causes them to reflect on Jesus’ life and think through how they can imitate him. In essence, Jesus’ task was to show the invisible Father to the world (1:18; 3:32; 12:45). The Johannine mimetic model, especially the aspects of showing and being, indicates that mimesis is a relational concept. Mimesis springs from a relationship where Jesus sets his disciples the example to imitate. The disciples’ observation and experience of Jesus’ original act probably also motivates and empowers them to imitate him. Regarding the love command, for example, we saw that Jesus’ love for the disciples is the basis (ὑπόδειγμα) that motivates and empowers them to imitate him and love one another. At the same time, the believers’ imitation of Jesus sustains and strengthens their relationship with Jesus and with one another, and ensures continued access to various divine benefits. Mimesis thus affirms and reinforces the social fabric of the divine family. The mimetic model also indicates 181. While Lazure merely mentions a few examples of mimesis in John’s Gospel and 1 John, without much explanation, he captures the concept well when he concludes that Johannine mimesis does not refer to the literal copying of Jesus’ actions but to the translation of what each situation requires in order to participate in Jesus’ life (Valeurs Morales, 154–57). Based on contemporary cognitive theory, Czachesz asserts that ‘imitation is accompanied by an understanding of the context and purpose of the imitated action’ (‘Mirror Neurons’, 274).

The Believer–Jesus/God Mimesis

141

that mimesis is a sensory, cognitive and volitional process. Mimesis involves both sensory and cognitive perception in that the imitator must observe the original act or state and interpret it. Then, the imitator must determine the appropriate form a corresponding mimetic act can take and decide to carry it out. We also showed that although mimesis primarily occurs in and for the community of believers, it also has a broader scope of recipients and aims to draw people into this community. Even though the most prominent forms of mimesis relate to humble service and sacrificial love, the Johannine literature conveys a wide range of mimetic expressions. Yet, the broad array of mimetic expressions in John can be reduced to two basic types or classes of mimesis: performative mimesis and existential mimesis. Performative mimesis is the most prevalent form (accounting for two-thirds of all mimetic occurrences), and understandably so because mimesis is usually associated with the imitation of an activity. Yet, the category of existential mimesis is remarkably frequent (accounting for a third of all mimetic occurrences) and varied (eight kinds of clear existential mimesis and two kinds of quasi-existential mimesis). In addition, existential mimesis is significant in that it directly contributes to John’s understanding of the believer’s identity, whereas performative mimesis does so indirectly (habitual mimetic behaviour leads to becoming like Jesus over time (see further Chapter 5)). In Chapter 3, we saw that mimesis mediates the divine reality to people, and in this chapter we also noted the mediatory function of mimesis in that authentic mimesis mediates Jesus. Regarding the commands to serve and love one another, for example, mimesis mediates the original experience of Jesus to the beneficiary, who can thus experience Jesus for themselves.182 There must be a strong correspondence between the believer’s mimetic act and Jesus’ original act. So much so, I suggest that the believer’s mimetic act becomes a channel through which the beneficiary can experience both Jesus and his humble, loving service for themselves. This also explains 13:20, where Jesus declares that ‘whoever receives one whom I send, receives me’. In short, mimesis mediates the original experience of Jesus to the recipient, who can then possibly respond to him.183 This indicates that mimesis benefits both the imitator and the recipient of the mimetic act (mimesis for the sake of others). 182. Others make similar observations: Collins states that ‘the love which the disciples have for one another continues the love which Christ has for them’ (‘New Commandment’, 119). Schnelle asserts that ‘indem in der Gemeinde die Liebestat Jesus als Bruderliebe Gestalt gewinnt, ist Jesu einmaliger Dienst im Handeln der Glaubenden gegenwärtig’ (‘Johanneische Ethik’, 317; Evangelium nach Johannes, 249). Hartin comments on the footwashing, ‘The follower of Jesus, who imitates the service of Jesus, by serving others in a humble and self-sacrificing way is, in effect, bringing them into contact with the selfsacrificing death of Jesus’ (‘Remain in Me’, 346). 183. Although the idea that a person could experience Jesus himself through the believer’s mimesis can seem fanciful, this was the testimony of those dying on the streets of Calcutta about Mother Teresa.

142

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

The paradigm for the believer–Jesus mimesis is the Son–Father mimesis, thus logically linking Chapters 3 and 4. The significance of this is twofold. First, Jesus’ method of using personal example to move his followers towards the kind of behaviour and character he expects from them by means of mimesis did not arise in a vacuum but was learnt from his Father. Second, we can detect a mimetic chain where Jesus imitates the Father and in turn becomes the example for the disciples to imitate. Having outlined in detail the Son–Father and believer–Jesus/God mimesis, we now turn to the issue of what role mimesis plays in Johannine ethics.

Chapter 5 The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

The aim of this chapter is to determine the place that mimesis occupies in Johannine ethics. In Chapter 2, we showed that mimesis exists in the Johannine Corpus and that we can legitimately speak about it. Accordingly, we explained in Chapters 3 and 4 the nature of the Johannine concept of mimesis. We are now in a position to consider where we should situate mimesis in the larger field of Johannine ethics. Our central question is this: Is mimesis central or peripheral to Johannine ethics? The answer unfolds in four stages. First, I will argue that ethics is an essential part of the fabric of the Johannine literature (Section 5.1). Second, I will show that ‘family’ is a major theological category for John and serves as the context for Johannine ethics (Section 5.2). Third, I will argue that the Johannine concept of mimesis shapes both the believer’s behaviour and identity within the context of the divine family (Section 5.3). Fourth, regarding the place of mimesis in Johannine ethics, I will establish that mimesis is integral to Johannine ethics (Section 5.4). This chapter is more systematic in nature, aiming at integrating John’s concept of mimesis into his broader ethical framework.

5.1 The Ethical Nature of the Johannine Literature In Chapter 1, I outlined the history and current state of Johannine ethics. I now seek to enhance our understanding of this discipline in order to position the concept of mimesis accurately within it. Strictly speaking, ethics as a branch of philosophy refers to ‘a system of moral codes’ or ‘the systematic reflection upon morality’, which would make it difficult to speak of ethics in the New Testament. However, if we define New Testament ethics more broadly as referring to ‘the moral beliefs, values and norms that the New Testament writings envisage will govern the character and conduct of a particular group called “Christians” in relation to their God and fellow human beings’, there will be scope to speak meaningfully of Johannine ethics.1 Although ethics is usually limited to the human sphere to speak

1. See also van Henten and Verheyden, ‘Introduction’, 6–7. Regarding the Johannine writings, the opening essays in the 2012 landmark study on Johannine ethics make a

144

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

of human interactions, I extend it to include divine–human behaviour because the Johannine literature (i) presents God as a moral being who extends various divine goods to people and operates at the human level through the incarnation, and (ii) uses the human category of ‘family’ to explain the divine–human relationship. In this section, I will show that the Johannine writings present a moral narrative world (Section 5.1.1), a moral God (Section 5.1.2) and envisage people’s moral transformation (Section 5.1.3).2 As a working definition, I use the term ‘moral transformation’ to refer to the shaping of or change in a person’s character and conduct when they understand, embrace and live out the beliefs, values and norms of God’s world. I will show that, as a child of God, the believer is transferred from the immoral world ‘below’ to the moral world ‘above’ and must now live in line with this new environment. This socio-religious relocation initiates a process of moral transformation. However, it is only acceptable to speak of moral transformation in the Johannine writings if John presents a moral God and if his writings have a moral dimension, otherwise we would be importing a foreign category. I will, therefore, first show that the Johannine writings contain a moral narrative. 5.1.1 A Moral Narrative World When viewed against Graeco-Roman virtue ethics, I contend that the Johannine writings have a strong moral dimension. Rather than claiming that John intentionally draws on Graeco-Roman morality, I simply suggest that virtue ethics is a useful heuristic framework for understanding Johannine ethics. John’s stated purpose for writing his Gospel and first Letter is that people may have ζωή (‘life’) through believing in Jesus (20:31; 1 John 5:13).3 I will argue, against the backdrop of Graeco-Roman virtue ethics, that John’s purpose is not simply soteriological but also ethical in nature. First, the Graeco-Roman concept of ‘the good life’ is a moral goal and John’s ζωή is equivalent to this. Second, John presents ‘belief in Jesus’ as the means for obtaining this moral goal. Discourse on Graeco-Roman virtue ethics originated with Plato and Aristotle, and continued with the Stoics. To make a comparison between Graeco-Roman

convincing case that ethics is much more central to Johannine thought than has been recognized so far: Labahn, ‘“It’s Only Love”’, 3–43; Zimmermann, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 44–80. 2. See also Cornelis Bennema, ‘Moral Transformation in the Johannine Writings’, In die Skriflig 51.3 (2017): 1–7, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i3.2120; idem, ‘Virtue Ethics and the Johannine Writings’. 3. For a discussion of the textual variant in 20:31 (‘so that you may come or continue to believe’), see any major commentary. D.A. Carson has argued that the syntax of 20:31 stresses on who the Messiah is rather than who Jesus is (‘The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered’, JBL 106 (1987): 639–51; ‘Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:3-31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel’, JBL 124 (2005): 693–714).

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

145

virtue ethics and Johannine ethics manageable, I will focus on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, arguably the most important virtue treatise in antiquity. In Book I of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle sets out to define the ultimate goal in human life. His premise is that every human activity aims at some end or good, but since there are numerous activities it follows that there are equally many ends. Nevertheless, Aristotle assumes that ‘the things achievable by action have some end that we wish for because of itself, and because of which we wish for the other things, and that we do not choose everything because of something else – for if we do, it will go on without limit, so that desire will prove to be empty and futile. Clearly, this end will be the good, that is to say, the best good’ (Nic. eth. 1094a1822).4 Aristotle then defines this supreme good achievable by action as εὐδαιμονία (‘well-being’, ‘happiness’, ‘flourishing’, ‘welfare’), where ‘being happy’ is generally equated with ‘living well’ and ‘doing well’ (τὸ δ᾽ εὖ ζῆν καὶ τὸ εὖ πράττειν ταὐτὸν ὑπολαμβάνουσι τῷ εὐδαιμονεῖν; Nic. eth. 1095a19-20). Aristotle states two criteria or features of εὐδαιμονία: (i) it must be ‘final’ or ‘complete’ (τέλος), in that it must be desired for its own sake and never for the sake of something else; (ii) it must be ‘self-sufficient’ (αὐτάρκεια), that is, it must be that which taken by itself makes life desirable and lacking in nothing (Nic. eth. 1097a25–1097b22). For Aristotle, εὐδαιμονία is the result of virtue (ἀρετή) and some process of learning or education (Nic. eth. 1099b9-20). In addition to virtuous activity, εὐδαιμονία requires ‘external goods’ such as friends, wealth, good birth, good children and beauty (Nic. eth. 1098b13–1099b8). In fact, achieving εὐδαιμονία takes a lifetime. As Aristotle says, just as one swallow does not make summer, so one day or a brief period of happiness does not make a man blessed (μακάριος) and happy (εὐδαιμονία) (Nic. eth. 1098a19-20). Aristotle thus views εὐδαιμονία teleologically, that is with the end (τέλος) in mind – εὐδαιμονία is a verdict on a person’s entire life. This could imply that no one can be truly called happy or know whether they have successfully completed their purpose in life until death. Aristotle objects to this. Since εὐδαιμονία is an activity over a lifetime, people can be called happy during their life, provided that they are able to maintain εὐδαιμονία until death. Although fortune has an effect, this is usually outweighed by the permanence of a person’s virtuous activities (Nic. eth. 1100a10–1101a21). In the Johannine literature, ζωή is the closest equivalent to εὐδαιμονία so that, for John, the ultimate end (τέλος) people should pursue for nothing but its own sake is ζωή. As we noted, John’s specific purpose for writing his account is that people may have ζωή (20:31; cf. 1 John 5:13). In his writings, John describes two kinds of life: (i) ψυχή is the transient, destructible human life that can be laid down (12:25; 13:37; 15:13); (ii) ζωή denotes the divine, everlasting life that the Father and Son share and that defines them (1:4; 5:21, 26; 6:57; 14:6). In fact, ζωή is John’s preferred term in relation to salvation. The Prologue introduces Jesus saying, ‘in him was ζωή’ (1:4), and the rest of the Gospel unpacks how there is ζωή in Jesus

4. I use the translation by Terence Irwin (Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary, 2nd ed. (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999)).

146

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

and how he makes it available to people. In the Johannine scheme of things, people do not (naturally) know God – in the sense that it would save them – and hence the ultimate good or ζωή is to know God and partake in the divine life that the Father and Son share (17:3). Put differently, salvation is being in a relationship with the Father and Son and sharing in their ζωή. If ζωή, the Johannine equivalent of εὐδαιμονία, is the highest moral good people can attain when they enter into a relationship with the Father and Son (since it is only there that ζωή is available), and if the Gospel from start (1:4) to finish (20:31) tells the story of how Jesus provides ζωή, then the entire Johannine narrative is a moral one. Like Aristotle’s concept of εὐδαιμονία, John’s concept of ζωή is a sustained activity over a lifetime (or part of it) rather than an instantaneous event. For John, it is crucial that one does not simply come to Jesus but remain with him; it is about coming to believe in Jesus and continuing to believe in him (cf. 6:60-69). As long as one remains ‘in’ Jesus (15:3), that is, in relationship with him, they have access to or partake in the divine ζωή. Moreover, just as Aristotle asserted that in addition to virtuous activity εὐδαιμονία also requires ‘external goods’ such as good birth (Nic. eth. 1099b2-5), so for John, the quest for ζωή must start with a proper lineage  – a birth into the family of God through the Spirit (1:12-13; 3:5). Such birth brings a person into God’s family where one participates in the divine ζωή. This participation in the divine ζωή then becomes a lifelong journey. In 14:6, Jesus claims that he is the way, the truth and the ζωή, so that to walk with Jesus becomes the journey of εὐδαιμονία. As in Aristotle’s account of εὐδαιμονία, Johannine ζωή is both the journey and the destination. Ζωή is therefore not simply a reward at the end for virtuous living; rather, believers already ‘have’ ζωή as they journey with Jesus, and virtuous living affirms and demonstrates that they have ζωή.5 Aristotle also includes friends among the ‘external goods’ that facilitate εὐδαιμονία, so it comes as no surprise that Jesus presents himself as a friend to his followers (15:13-15). We noted that for Aristotle εὐδαιμονία was attained by practising certain virtues during one’s life. This raises the issue of how ζωή as the Johannine equivalent of εὐδαιμονία can be achieved. Which virtues would one have to practise for this? I suggest that πιστεύειν (‘to believe’) is the particular Johannine virtue necessary for obtaining ζωή. Generally, culture and a community’s ethos define virtue, so we must determine what John would have considered virtuous behaviour and the purpose or good this would have served. We saw that John’s purpose statements in John 20:31 and 1 John 5:13 explicitly state that the means for obtaining ζωή is πιστεύειν in Jesus, suggesting that πιστεύειν has a moral dimension. We see this confirmed in John 6:27-29. The crowd enquires about τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ following Jesus’ exhortation ‘to work’ (ἐργάζεσθαι) for food that leads to ζωή,

5. For people, ‘to have ζωή’ does not denote that ζωή has become a human possession but ‘to partake or have a share in the divine life of the Father and Son’. In other words, a person who ‘has ζωή’ is one who is in a life-giving relationship with God, and ζωή can never be had apart from this relationship.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

147

so Jesus explains that the singular ἔργον God requires from them is πιστεύειν in Jesus.6 Both the Johannine Jesus and John the author, therefore, view πιστεύειν as the virtuous activity that leads to ζωή or εὐδαιμονία. Believing is a moral act that acknowledges the true identity and work of God and Jesus, and their relationship.7 In other words, πιστεύειν, the sole ἔργον God requires, is the right moral response to God because it renders to God the respect due to him.8 For John, the proper response to Jesus’ revelation of God is πιστεύειν, whereas unbelief is sin and hence immoral (16:9; cf. 8:24). However, authentic Johannine belief is more than propositional knowledge of Jesus (although there is that too): πιστεύειν refers to an initial adequate belief-response, expressed in an allegiance to Jesus that is then sustained in discipleship. For John, it is crucial that one does not simply come to Jesus but also stay with him as a disciple (see 6:60-69). In other words, the Johannine concept of ζωή refers to an activity over a lifetime rather than an instantaneous event. For John, ζωή is achieved through πιστεύειν and sustained by various forms of appropriate behaviour that constitute discipleship. In sum, when we look at the Johannine writings through the lens of Graeco-Roman virtue ethics, we see that ζωή is the Johannine equivalent of εὐδαιμονία, with πιστεύειν as the primary virtue or means by which one achieves this highest moral good. Believing in Jesus is a moral act not only because it is the sole means by which people attain ζωή, the highest moral good, but also because, as the sole ἔργον God requires, it is the proper moral response that people should render to God.9

6. Recently, Sigurd Grindheim has argued that τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ in 6:29 is a subjective genitive, referring to the work that God does, rather than an objective genitive, referring to the work that God expects from people (‘The Work of God or of Human Beings: A Note on John 6:29’, JETS 59 (2016): 63–66). It is possible, however, that both aspects are in view: πιστεύειν may be the ‘work’ that God requires from people and that he does in people (cf. 6:37, 44; 17:2) (see also Carson, Gospel according to John, 285; Lincoln, Gospel according to Saint John, 227; Hermut Löhr, ‘ Ἔργον as an Element of Moral Language in John’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 238–39). 7. Cornelis Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 130–31; idem, ‘Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God: A Study in Johannine Epistemology’, in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God, ed. Mary Healy and Robin Parry (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007), 122–24). 8. See also van der Watt, ‘John’s Perception’, 433–35. 9. Although Aristotelian virtue ethics seems a useful heuristic device to understand Johannine ethics, their different cosmologies lead to different attitudes, and I thank Professor John Riches for drawing my attention to this. For Aristotle, the world is good and people should practise the virtues to maximize the good in the world. So, if someone is a craftsman, he should seek to become a good craftsman and thus contribute to the politicalethical life of the Greek polis (see Nic. eth. 1094a–1098a; see also Michael Pakaluk, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 51–57). For John, however, the world is dark and evil, and Johannine ethics is not about transforming or contributing to the world. Rather, Johannine ethics is about life within the

148

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

5.1.2 A Moral God In this section, I will argue that at the heart of John’s moral narrative world is a moral God. The Johannine literature evidently depicts God in soteriological terms. God is the one who saves people by sending his Son into the world so that all who believe in Jesus may have ζωή (e.g. 3:16-17; 12:47; 1 John 4:9). In keeping with this, the Johannine Jesus does not deliver an ethical treatise like the Sermon on the Mount but instead has soteriologically oriented dialogues with his opponents about his identity, origins and his ability to give life. So, does the Johannine literature present the Father and Son as moral beings? I suggest we can answer in the affirmative when we consider God’s identity and the ‘work’ he is involved in. 1 John 1:5-10 is perhaps the most explicit moral passage in the Johannine literature and will serve as a starting point to explore the morality of God. God is described here as φῶς (‘light’) without an element of σκοτία (‘darkness’). Elsewhere, Jesus is similarly characterized as φῶς (1:4-5; 8:12; 1 John 2:8). John’s characterization of God and Jesus as φῶς has a moral dimension when viewed against σκοτία, which characterizes people and the devil. For John, light is a moral good or quality because it enlightens people’s dark minds and provides ζωή (1:4-5, 9).10 People do not have a saving knowledge of God apart from the Logos-Light who enlightens people by revealing God (1:9, 18; 8:12; 12:46; cf. 1 John 5:20). The darkness that characterizes the world and its people is inter alia a moral darkness because the dark world rejects the life-giving Light (1:4-11). People engage in morally dubious behaviour (πράττειν φαῦλα) and have immoral inclinations – they have a strong aversion to the light (μισεῖν τὸ φῶς) and prefer the darkness (ἀγαπᾶν τὸ σκότος) for fear that their evil deeds (πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα) may be exposed (3:19-20; cf. 7:7). The ruler of the world, the devil, is also cast in immoral terms such as ‘the evil one’ (ὁ πονηρός; 17:15; 1 John 5:18-19), murderer, liar (8:44), and sinner (1 John 3:8; sin is morally wrong (ἀδικία; 1 John 5:17)). As such, people in the world are under the rule of ‘the evil one’, enslaved to sin (8:34), children of the devil (8:44; 1 John 3:8) and characterized by immoral behaviour (3:19-20; 7:7). Returning to 1 John 1:5-10, morally, God is identified as light, not darkness, so those who claim to belong to him must show moral affinity with God by confessing their sins, thus implying that sin belongs to the darkness (1 John 1:69). Elsewhere, sin is defined as a moral wrong – ἀδικία (1 John 5:17) and ἀνομία (1 John 3:4). God, who is πιστός (‘faithful’, ‘trustworthy’) and δίκαιος (‘righteous’, ‘just’), will act morally towards his people through acts of forgiveness (ἀφιέναι) and cleansing (καθαρίσαι) regarding their sin/unrighteousness (1 John 1:9; ‘to believing community or God’s society, not in a sectarian sense but to attract people from the world to God’s world. Hence, Johannine ethics focuses on the divine family but is also directed outward. Yet, the outward direction of Johannine ethics is aimed at drawing people into God’s world rather than transforming the world. 10. The darkness in 1:5 can be understood, inter alia, as a cognitive darkness (people do not know God) because the verb καταλαμβάνειν can either mean ‘to overcome, overpower’ or ‘to comprehend, understand’, and arguably both are in view.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

149

cleanse from sin’ in v. 7 is synonymous with ‘to cleanse from unrighteousness’ in v. 9), which will enable them to be and remain in a right relationship with him. 1 John 1:7 also indicates that the cleansing and forgiveness of sin is related to the cross, through the phrase τὸ αἷμα Ἰησοῦ (cf. 6:53-56). This idea is also presented in the related phrases describing Jesus taking away the world’s sins (ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κόσμου; 1:29; 1 John 3:5) and being the atoning sacrifice for people’s sins (ἱ λασμός ἐστιν περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν . . . ὅλου τοῦ κόσμου; 1 John 2:2; 4:10). Like God, Jesus is morally characterized as πιστός and δίκαιος (1 John 2:1; 3:7). Thus, God can act morally towards immoral people because his moral Son has dealt with people’s immorality. Elsewhere, Jesus states how the Father and he are involved in the moral activity of cleansing people (15:2-3). At the same time, the evil ruler of the world, the devil, is judged/condemned and expelled from his realm through Jesus’ action on the cross (12:31; 16:11; 1 John 3:8). Thus, the cross has a moral aspect in that it is the place where Jesus dealt with the immorality of humanity and its ruler. In contrast to the devil and human beings, John characterizes God and Jesus as moral beings. Though by no means exhaustive, I focus on five moral attributes or properties that characterize the Father and Son – life, light, love, truth and honour. These divine attributes or properties have a moral aspect because they are extended to people to shape their character and conduct (see further Section 5.2.1). Life. This attribute is expressed using the noun ζωή (‘[divine] life’) and its cognate verbs ζῆν (‘to live’) and ζῳοποιεῖν (‘to give [divine] life’). Ζωή is the everlasting, indestructible life that the Father and Son share and it defines them (1:4; 5:26; 11:25-26; 14:6; cf. 1 John 5:20). The three occurrences of the verb ζῳοποιεῖν (‘to give life’) – John uses it once of the Father (5:21), once of the Son (5:21), and once of the Spirit (6:63) – also indicate that God is the sole source of life.11 Ζωή is a moral category because (i) it represents the continual existence of a moral God, and (ii) God extends his life to people so that they may share in the divine life. As we saw earlier, ζωή is the ultimate moral good that people can achieve. Light. This attribute is conveyed by the noun φῶς (‘light’) and its cognate verbs φαίνειν (‘to shine’) and φωτίζειν (‘to give light’). Jesus is described as the lifegiving light of the world (1:4-5, 9; 8:12; 12:46) and God is also described as light (1 John 1:5). As I explained above, light is a moral quality of the Father and Son because it is associated with ζωή and contrasted with the immoral darkness that characterizes the world. The divine life-giving light shines on people to dispel the immoral darkness (1:9; 12:46; 1 John 1:7; 2:8). Love. This attribute is articulated by the interchangeable nouns ἀγάπη and φίλος (‘love’), and their cognate verbs ἀγαπᾶν and φιλεῖν (‘to love’). Love is an existential identity marker that defines God (1 John 4:8, 16) and Jesus (in 17:26, God’s love residing in the believer is equated with Jesus being in the believer). The mutual love between the Father and Son (3:35; 5:20; 14:31) is shared with

11. Cf. the phrase διδόναι ζωήν (‘to give life’) in reference to Jesus (6:33; 10:28; 17:2) and the Father (1 John 5:11, 16).

150

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

or extended to the believer (14:21, 23; 16:27). God showed his love for people by giving up his Son at the cross as an atoning sacrifice (ἱλασμός) for humanity’s sins (3:16; 1 John 4:8-10). Love drives Jesus to give his life for the life of the world (1 John 3:16). Hence, love is a moral category because it precipitates a divine act of goodness on behalf of immoral people. Truth. This property is expressed by the noun ἀλήθεια (‘truth’) and its cognate adjectives ἀληθής and ἀληθινός (‘true’). ‘Truth’ is Johannine shorthand for the divine reality, that is, the reality about God and the world above (cf. 1:9, 17; 3:33; 8:26, 40; 17:17). Like life, light and love, truth is an existential identity marker in that it defines the Father (3:33; 17:3), Jesus (14:6; 1 John 5:20) and the Spirit (14:17; 1 John 5:6). Jesus embodies and defines truth (1:14; 14:6) but also mediates this truth to people (1:17-18; 3:31-33; 8:31-32, 40, 45; cf. 6:32, 55).12 Truth is the defining moral component of Jesus’ revelation/teaching because it liberates people from sin and provides moral cleansing (8:31-32, 36; 15:3; 17:17). Honour. The noun δόξα (‘honour’) and its cognate verb δοξάζειν (‘to honour’) are used to describe honour, which was the most significant indicator of one’s status or worth in the first-century society. Jesus has both ascribed honour (1:14; 17:5) and acquired honour (17:1-5). We learn that the Father and Son affirm or enhance each other’s honour (8:49, 54; 13:31-32; 14:13; 17:1-5), so it is reciprocal.13 Honour has a moral aspect, albeit not prominently, in that Jesus’ completion of the Father’s moral work results in mutual honour (17:4-5). The honour shared by the Father and Son is also extended to believers (17:22), affirming their worth in the divine family and bolstering its unity. I will return to these five moral qualities or goods in Section 5.2.1 when we look at the believer’s existence in God’s family. In addition, God and Jesus are also characterized by other moral qualities, such as ἀγαθός/καλός (‘good’; 7:12; 10:11, 14, 32; 3 John 11);14 δίκαιος (‘righteous’, ‘just’; 5:30; 17:25; 1 John 1:9; 2:1, 29; 3:7);15 ‘sinless’ (1 John 3:5; cf. 8:46);16 πιστός (‘faithful’, ‘trustworthy’; 1 John 1:9);17 ἅγιος 12. The Spirit, as τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, also mediates truth to people (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). 13. The Spirit also honours the Son (16:14). 14. ‘Good’ is a moral quality, for example, in 10:11 because the shepherd’s goodness is demonstrated by laying down his life for his sheep. In 3 John 11, ἀγαθός relates to God, whereas κακός does not. 15. Δίκαιος (‘righteous’, ‘just’; 5:30; 17:25; 1 John 1:9; 2:1, 29; 3:7). Jesus’ judgement is characterized as righteous or just because it is not driven by his own interests (cf. Jesus’ warning in 7:24) but by God’s moral will (5:30; 6:39-40). God and Jesus’ righteousness consists of or is expressed in extending forgiveness and moral cleansing to people (1 John 1:9; 2:1). 16. The phrase ‘in Jesus there is no sin’ (1 John 3:5) is synonymous with ‘in God there is no darkness’ (1 John 1:5). Hence, John is careful to dissociate immorality from God and Jesus. Since Jesus is without sin, he can perform a crucial moral act – to take away (the world’s) sins (1 John 3:5; 1:29). 17. Πιστός (‘faithful’, ‘trustworthy’; 1 John 1:9). Being faithful or trustworthy is a moral category because it indicates that a person is reliable, in that one’s behaviour corresponds to

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

151

(‘holy’; 6:69; 17:11);18 and ἁγνός (‘pure’; 1 John 3:3).19 These moral qualities describe both the character or identity of God and Jesus and their behaviour. For example, Jesus is regarded as being ‘good’ (10:11, 14) and doing ‘good’ (10:32); Jesus is life (1:4; 14:6) and gives life (5:21); Jesus is light (1:5, 9; 8:12) and gives light (1:5, 9; 1 John 2:8); Jesus acts justly and is just (5:30; 1 John 2:1, 29); Jesus is truth and testifies to the truth (14:6; 18:37); God is love (1 John 4:8, 16) and acts in love (3:16; 5:20; 1 John 4:9-11, 19). In short, God and Jesus both embody and demonstrate these moral goods – they give and behave in keeping with who they are. This is unsurprising because a moral being would be expected to behave morally. When we look at the work God is involved in, we also see a moral dimension because God’s ἔργον, carried out by Jesus (4:34; 17:4), is to deliver people from moral darkness (3:19-20; 5:17; 9:3-4) and give them ζωή, the chief moral benefit. God’s moral work of saving people includes liberation, cleansing, sanctification and forgiveness (8:32; 15:3; 17:17, 19; 1 John 1:9; 2:1). The Spirit-Paraclete continues this moral work by exposing and convicting people of their sin, God’s righteousness and the judgement regarding the devil (16:8-11). In Section 3.1.2, I explained the nature of the divine work. The ἔργον or ἔργα of God refer(s) to the life-giving mission that the Father has given Jesus to carry out. To put it differently, the Father’s ἔργον consists of drawing people to Jesus in order to receive a share in the divine life, which Jesus ultimately achieves at the cross (6:39-40, 44; 12:32). People can align themselves with God’s moral work by πιστεύειν in Jesus (6:27-29). Believing is a moral act in that it acknowledges the true nature of the identity and work of God and Jesus and their relationship, and renders to them the respect that is due. In sum, the Johannine literature presents a narrative world where two mutually exclusive moral realms and rulers are pitted against each other.20 Immoral categories such as death, lies, hate, sin, darkness, murder are related to the devil and his realm (including its people). For John, God and Jesus are moral beings, characterized by various moral attributes or qualities (e.g. life, light, love, truth, one’s character. According to 1 John 1:9, people can trust that when they confess their sins, God will forgive and cleanse them because he is both reliable and fair. 18. Holy with reference to God indicates moral purity (cf. Lev 19:2; Isa 6:3). The cognate verb ἁγιάζειν (‘to consecrate, dedicate, sanctify’) in John 17:17, 19 in relation to the divine activity of believers has a moral aspect because it indicates ‘a person in the inner circle of what is holy, in both cultic and moral associations of the word’ (BDAG, s.v.). That truth, a moral term, is also mentioned only strengthens the idea. Thus, believers are placed and kept in proximity to the holy God through the divine activity of ‘sanctification in the truth’, which is shorthand for the cleansing and liberating effects of the truth that is present in Jesus’ words/teaching (8:31-32; 15:3). 19. Although originally a cultic term, ‘pure’ also gained a moral sense (BDAG, s.v.; cf. the contrast between 1 John 3:3 and 3:4). Jesus is described here as morally pure and as an example on which the believers’ purity is modelled. 20. Bolyki employs the theory of ethical conflicts in ancient dramas to show that the conflict in the Gospel of John is also ethical in nature and part of John’s moral story (‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 198–208).

152

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

honour) and moral behaviour (e.g. saving, cleansing, sanctifying, forgiving).21 In short, the realm above where God exists and the realm below where the devil rules and people live are moral opposites. The ultimate moral attainment for people is to take part in the shared ζωή of God and Jesus through the moral act of πιστεύειν in Jesus. Other moral goods that characterize the identity and relationship of the Father and Son, such as light, love, truth and honour, are also available to believers through their participation in the divine relationship. 5.1.3 Moral Transformation Having shown that the Johannine writings present a moral narrative world, we can move to the idea of moral transformation, which occurs when people live in proximity to a moral God. I contend that the Johannine literature presents a moral God who seeks the moral transformation of people. In Section 5.1.1, we learnt that people are living in a dark, immoral world governed by an immoral ruler and are defined by sin and immoral behaviour. God’s saving activity in Jesus consists of transferring people from this immoral realm below to his moral realm. Hence, moral transformation starts with a new birth by the Spirit, precipitating a relocation from the dark, immoral world to the moral world of God (1:12-13; 3:35; 5:24; 17:14, 16; 1 John 3:14). This takes place when people ‘practise’ the virtue of πιστεύειν in Jesus as the singular moral ‘work’ God requires. This new birth results in a new identity – one becomes a child of God in his family (1:12-13) – and should lead to new behaviour that is in line with what Jesus taught and exemplified. In short, once people are part of the divine realm where God lives and rules, moral transformation occurs where both their identity and behaviour are being shaped by the moral beliefs, values and norms of God and his world. I will briefly outline how this new identity and behaviour looks, and then examine them in more detail in Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 in the context of John’s family ethics. In terms of identity, believers become part of God’s family and are characterized as ‘children’ of God (1:12) and ‘siblings’ of Jesus (20:17). In his first Letter, John thus uses various ethical indicatives such as ‘We are God’s children’ (1 John 3:1-2), ‘Our fellowship is with the Father and Son’ (1 John 1:3), ‘We are in him’ (1 John 2:5) and ‘We know that he abides in us’ (1 John 3:24) to indicate the moral transformation that has begun among believers.22 This language reflects the believers’ relationship with the Father and Son and how they begin to participate in the moral goods such as life, light, love, truth and honour that characterize this relationship. Not only will they experience these moral goods for themselves, they also appropriate and express them. For example, believers who have drunk the life-giving water that

21. I will not discuss the notion of first cause (whether God loves because he is love or vice versa). I simply maintain that there is a reciprocity between identity/character and behaviour/conduct (see further Section 5.2.2). 22. These markers are ethical indicatives in that they state the believer’s new existence in relation to a moral God.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

153

Jesus provides become derivative sources of life to others (4:14; 7:38-39). Believers become derivative sources of light as they testify to the divine reality in that their Spirit-informed testimony to the truth will evoke belief (15:26-27; 17:20), just as John’s testimony was a source of light and evoked belief (1:7; 5:35; 10:41-42). The love among believers, made tangible in acts of service, will be a testimony to the world (13:35; 1 John 3:17-18). As people characterized by the truth, believers now worship in truth (4:23), ‘do the truth’ and ‘walk in the truth’ (1 John 1:6; 2 John 4; 3 John 3-4). Believers share in the honour of the Father and Son (17:22) and bring honour to God through appropriate behaviour (15:8; 21:19). In short, believers exist in the divine realm as part of God’s family where they are shaped in their identity and behaviour by moral goods such as life, light, love, truth and honour. As believers exist in the divine realm, they are also taught how to behave morally. This relates to the topic of discipleship and although discipleship, in terms of coming to Jesus and remaining with him in order to have life, is a soteriological category, it also has an ethical dimension which indicates the behaviour that Jesus expects from his followers. Consequently, we find various ethical imperatives in the Johannine literature meant to direct the believer’s behaviour – to love one another, abide in Jesus and his word, bear fruit, keep his commandments, serve one another, lay down one’s life for others, testify to Jesus, do or walk in the truth, and be pure and righteous.23 The primary moral imperative is for people to believe in Jesus (6:28-29). Such a belief results in a share in the divine life (cf. 20:31; 1 John 5:13) and other moral commodities such as light, love, truth and honour. Being part of God’s reality and having access to various moral commodities should lead to the believers’ moral transformation. Believers will be transformed to the extent that they learn to think and behave ‘from above’, that is, to show ‘moral reasoning’ and moral conduct in accordance with the beliefs, values and norms of God’s world.24 Moral reasoning undergirds moral behaviour because the number of explicit moral instructions in the Johannine writings is not exhaustive; rather, believers must learn to think morally and this moral reasoning should direct their behaviour. In order to model and promote moral reasoning and behaviour among his audience, John presents various characters in his Gospel as potential change agents. While some characters exemplify aspects of moral behaviour for the reader to emulate, other characters exemplify traits or behaviour that should be

23. Zimmermann shows that moral instructions are not limited to grammatical imperatives but can also be conveyed by other linguistic forms and ideas (‘“Implicit Ethics”’, 405–6). 24. For the concept of moral reasoning, see Bennema, ‘Moral Transformation’, 3–4; idem, ‘Virtue Ethics and the Johannine Writings’, section ‘Virtuous Thinking’. See also Nico J. Grönum, who argues that fostering moral deliberation is important for behavioural change, otherwise we only operate by instinctive behaviour guided by cultural schemata (‘A Return to Virtue Ethics: Virtue Ethics, Cognitive Science and Character Education’, Verbum et Ecclesia 36.1 (2015): 1–6, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v36i1.1413).

154

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

avoided. Many Johannine characters show no ability to think or act ‘from above’; they do not understand, fail to understand or misunderstand the divine reality that Jesus presents in his teaching. Think, for example, of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι who are unwilling to accept Jesus, or Nicodemus who seems incapable of understanding Jesus, the invalid at the pool who ignores Jesus’ warning, Judas who sides with the devil, Pilate who rejects the Truth that stands before him, Philip in 6:5-7, and Peter in 13:6-9, 37; 18:10. Other characters, however, are more successful, albeit with Jesus’ help: the Samaritan woman in 4:16-30, the royal official in 4:50-53, Peter in 6:68-69, the blind man in 9:17-38, Martha in 11:21-27, Mary Magdalene in 21:14-18, and Thomas in 21:25-28.25 We could therefore say that the believers’ moral transformation is proportionate to their ability to think and behave ‘from above’. John models and promotes such morality by presenting various characters in his narrative that his readers should evaluate according to his point of view.26 The example of Jesus is, of course, most crucial for moral transformation because Jesus often sets the example for appropriate moral behaviour that he expects his disciples and later believers to follow, as Chapter 4 has shown. 5.1.4. Conclusion I have argued in this section that ethics is part of the fabric of the Johannine literature. I have shown that the Johannine writings present a moral God saving immoral people by bringing them through a new birth into his moral world where they will experience moral transformation. For John, the single moral ‘work’ that God requires from humans is to believe in Jesus. Such belief results in people participating or sharing in the divine life, the ultimate moral good people can attain. Thus, within John’s dualistic scheme, the believer is transferred from the world below to the world above, where moral commodities such as life, light, love, truth and honour are available. Being part of this divine reality results in moral transformation. Believers will be transformed to the extent that they think and behave in accordance to the beliefs, values and norms of God’s world. This morality is personified in Jesus as the model of moral behaviour that John’s audience should emulate. We noted that soteriology and ethics are intrinsically related in the Johannine writings in that John presents salvation as people’s entry into a lifegiving relationship with God where moral transformation takes place. Patterned after the character and behaviour of the Father and Son, believers are shaped in their identity and behaviour. We will now delve deeper into the believer’s existence and moral transformation as members of God’s family.

25. For a detailed analysis of these characters, see the respective chapters in Bennema, Encountering Jesus. 26. For the concept of Johannine characters as moral agents, see Bennema, ‘Virtue Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 174–80; idem, ‘Moral Transformation’, 5–6; idem, ‘Virtue Ethics and the Johannine Writings’, section ‘Johannine Characters as Virtuous Examples’.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

155

5.2 Family as the Context of Johannine Ethics I contend that ‘family’ is a major Johannine theological category. Although family is a pervasive theme in the Johannine literature, it has not received much attention from scholars.27 ‘Family’ evokes ideas of relationship, intimacy, belonging, worth, status, role and responsibilities, and thus relates to identity and behaviour. ‘Family’ or ‘household’ (John uses the terms οἶκός and οἰκία) is a social construct, describing the basic social unit in all first-century cultures.28 By extension, the ‘family of God’ denotes the basic unit of the divine society, comprising God the Father, Jesus the Son, the Spirit and believers. The idea of the divine family begins with the characterization of the relationship between God and Jesus (see also Section 3.1.1). Throughout John’s Gospel, God relates to Jesus as Father, and Jesus to God as Son, and while no specific family label is given to the Spirit, I suggested in Section 3.2 that there are sufficient reasons to consider the Spirit part of the divine family. Finally, John indicates that those who ‘receive’, that is, believe in, Jesus become part of this divine family as ‘children’ of God through a ‘birth’ of God (1:12-13), which is further explained as a birth of the Spirit (3:5-6). God’s family is a fictive kin group constituted around Jesus, where a pledge of allegiance to Jesus brings about the believer’s ‘spiritual birth’ into the divine family as a child of God and sibling of Jesus. As part of God’s family, the believer is bound to show appropriate family behaviour or discipleship, such as humble service, love, testifying about Jesus, and so on. In short, the Johannine narrative depicts a divine family with God the Father and Jesus the Son as the primary members. This nuclear family is not exclusive; people can become part of it through an adequate belief-response followed by proper family behaviour. The divine family is therefore the proper context for Johannine ethics. I will now explore how participation in the divine family affects the believer’s identity and behaviour. 5.2.1 Family Membership and Identity Formation Entry into the divine family occurs through a ‘birth’ of God (1:12-13) or waterand-Spirit (3:5) when a person believes in Jesus, the incarnate life-giving Logos (1:4, 12).29 I have explained elsewhere that true Johannine belief refers to an 27. The most comprehensive studies to date are: van der Watt, Family of the King; Ruben Zimmermann, Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium: Die Christopoetik des vierten Evangeliums unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10, WUNT 171 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 172–83; Coloe, Dwelling in the Household of God; Joan Cecelia Campbell, Kinship Relations in the Gospel of John, CBQMS 42 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2007). While van der Watt and Coloe focus on God’s family, Campbell examines Jesus’ biological family. 28. See also Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 41–43; van der Watt, Family of the King, 166. 29. ‘Since birth is the most basic means of becoming part of a family, it serves as an effective metaphor to activate family imagery in the Gospel’ (van der Watt, Family of the King, 168). Ἐκ also frequently denotes origin – ἐκ θεοῦ (1:13; 8:47) or ἐκ τοῦ πνεύματος (3:5-6).

156

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

adequate belief-response and a commitment to Jesus in discipleship. Such a beliefresponse is based on a Spirit-informed understanding of the Father and Son in terms of their identity, relationship and mission.30 Believers have a permanent place in God’s family (8:35) and are accorded the status of God’s ‘children’ (1:12; cf. 1 John 3:1-2) or Jesus’ ‘siblings’ (ἀδελφοί (20:17)).31 Entry into the divine family results in acquiring a new identity (‘from above’) and becoming part of a new environment (an otherworldly family). Besides being ‘from above’ and a ‘child of God’, a believer has two other identity markers. As part of the divine family, the believer ‘has’ or receives the Spirit (7:39; 14:16-17; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; 1 John 3:24; 4:13), which is akin to having a relationship with, or partaking in, the Spirit.32 The Spirit facilitates and sustains the believer’s existence in the divine realm and enables the believer to show appropriate family behaviour (see further Section 6.3). In addition, believers are appointed as Jesus’ emissaries in the world (17:18; 20:21). There are further identity markers that characterize and shape the believer as part of God’s family. The essence of the divine family identity is encapsulated in the concept of communion. The literal term κοινωνία occurs only in 1 John 1:3-7, to denote the communion or fellowship that exists between the Father and Son, in which the believer partakes.33 The concept of communion, however, is widespread in the Johannine literature, found in the terms for oneness/unity (ἕν εἶναι) and indwelling (μένειν ἐν; (εἶναι) ἐν). The oneness or unity that exists between the Father and Son is the template for the oneness or unity among believers in the divine family (10:30; 17:11, 21-23; see also Section 4.4.1). Just as the Father and Son indwell each other, so they will indwell the believer, and vice versa (6:56; 14:10; 17:21-23, 26; 1 John 2:5-6, 24, 27-28; 3:6, 24; 4:12-16). While this is primarily functional or relational language for the intimate relationship between the Father, Son and believer, an ontological dimension cannot be ruled out. It is unlikely, on Aaron’s continuum of meaning (see the Excursus in Section 4.4.1), that the terms ‘oneness’ and ‘indwelling’ literally mean believers are divine (a form of theosis or deification) or that the Father, Son and believer are identical or physically dwell inside one another. It is equally unlikely, however, that these terms are metaphorical assertions that only denote closeness of relationship. Instead, I suggest that this language is ‘ascriptive’ or ‘quasi-literal’, indicating a mystical, divine communion that affects the believer at every level. It would be safe to conclude that communion (fellowship, oneness, unity, indwelling) is the most significant identity marker of the divine family.

30. Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, chs. 3–5; idem, ‘Christ’, 113–20. 31. Note also the use of the fictive kinship terms τεκνία and παιδία (‘little children’) as a loving address Jesus uses for his disciples (13:33; 21:5), and John for his spiritual children (1 John 2:1, 12, 14, 18, 28; 3:7, 18; 4:4; 5:21). Family language also occurs in 11:52 and 19:2627, indicating that the cross is central to the Johannine concept of family. 32. For the Johannine reception of the Spirit, see Bennema, ‘Giving of the Spirit in John 19–20’, 86–104. 33. Turner explains that John’s use of κοινωνία as ‘personal fellowship with someone’ is rather unique in the New Testament (‘Churches of the Johannine Letters’, 53–55).

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

157

Since the believer’s communion with God means being drawn into and participating in the intimate relationship that the Father and Son share, we can grasp it better by examining the essential qualities of this divine relationship. If John presents God as being moral, we must ask what values of God’s character and world will shape the identity and behaviour of believers. In Sections 3.1.1 and 5.1.2, I showed that the relationship between the Father and Son is characterized by the moral qualities or attributes of life, light, love, truth and honour.34 When people enter God’s family and take part in the relationship that the Father and Son share, these moral values or attributes begin to shape their identity and behaviour. I will elaborate. Life. Ζωή represents the indestructible, continual existence of God and is the ultimate moral good that people can achieve (20:31; 1 John 5:13). While people only have ψυχή, which is transient and destructible (10:11-18; 12:25; 13:37; 15:13; 1 John 3:16), entry into the divine family allows them to share in the divine ζωή (e.g. 3:15-16; 4:14; 5:24). Similarly, the verb ζῆν (‘to live’) indicates that the believer’s life is an extension of the life that the Father and Son share (6:51, 57; 14:19).35 While God is the sole source of life, believers partake in this divine life and can become an auxiliary source of life for others (7:38b). For example, when the Samaritan woman has drunk from the life-giving water that Jesus offers her,36 she, in turn, becomes a derivative source of life-giving water for her fellow villagers because her testimony causes them to believe in Jesus and receive ζωή (4:28-30, 39). Similarly, believers are to testify about Jesus in the world in order to evoke belief among others (15:27; 17:20). As believers partake in the ζωή of the Father and Son, they too are expected to facilitate others to achieve this supreme moral good.37 Light. Light is a moral good because it is associated with life and truth, and the opposite of darkness and evil that characterizes the world. The divine lifegiving light shines on people to dispel their immoral darkness (1:9; 12:46; 1 John 2:8). Believers are called ‘children of light’ when they accept the Light (12:35-36) and their subsequent behaviour should reflect this light (3:19-21; 11:9-10; 1 John 1:7; 2:10). John the Baptist serves as an example. While he was not the light, he nevertheless gave light by testifying to the Light, with the purpose of evoking belief among his audience (1:6-8). Jesus’ description of John as a shining lamp (ὁ λύχνος

34. Although I presented a larger list of God’s moral qualities in Section 5.1.1, the most prominent are the five mentioned above. 35. Although the phrase ‘to have life in himself ’ (ἔχειν ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ) is reserved for the Father and Son (5:26), it is extended to believers (6:53), but is qualified by the prerequisite of accepting Jesus. The most frequent phrase in relation to believers is ‘to have (eternal) life’, which should read ‘to have a share in the divine life of the Father and Son’. 36. This is the probable corollary of her abandoning her water jar, her suggestion that she has met the Messiah, and the Samaritans’ confession (which most probably includes hers) that Jesus is the Saviour of the world (see also Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 189–92). 37. For a study of John’s ζωή-ethic, see Mira Stare, ‘Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 213–28.

158

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

ὁ φαίνων; 5:33) speaks of John’s ability to give light and is analogous to the moon’s capacity to shine by reflecting the light of the sun. Likewise, enlightened believers who partake in the light can be auxiliary lights when they testify to Jesus as the life-giving light (cf. 17:20). Love. Love is a divine moral value that drives God to act morally – it precipitates a divine act of self-giving, culminating at the cross, on behalf of immoral people. The love that the Father and Son share is extended to believers and identifies them as members of God’s family (13:35; 14:21, 23; 16:27; 1 John 4:7-8, 16, 19).38 In addition, the love that characterizes believers should be discernible in their behaviour (13:34-35; 1 John 3:16-18; see also Sections 4.3.3–4.3.4). Truth. ‘Truth’ denotes the reality about God and the world above, and is found in Jesus’ revelatory teaching. Truth is a moral value because it liberates people from sin and provides moral cleansing (8:31-32; 15:3; 17:17). Those who accept the truth are then ‘from the truth’ (εἶναι ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας; 18:37; 1 John 3:19), and this truth should shape their moral behaviour. Indeed, John uses various expressions to stress that truth is a demonstrable moral quality: ‘to do the truth’ (3:21), ‘to testify to the truth’ (15:27; 19:35; 21:24), ‘to love in truth’ (1 John 3:18; 5:20), ‘to worship in truth’ (4:23-24), and ‘to be guided into the truth’ (16:13).39 Honour. Believers share in the honour of the Father and Son (17:22; cf. 11:40, which indicates that by believing people gain access to divine honour), thus marking their status in the divine family.40 Believers can ascribe or bring honour to God through appropriate moral behaviour (which might result in acquired honour for themselves). For example, if bestowing honour on someone is to render them due respect, then believing in Jesus is not only the right moral response to God (see Section 5.1.1) but also an honourable act. Other examples of appropriate moral behaviour that brings honour to God are: (i) to testify to the truth (9:24);41 (ii) to bear fruit (15:8); (iii) just as Jesus honours God by completing his moral work (17:4), believers will also honour Jesus/God by continuing Jesus’ mission; (iv) to lay down one’s life for Jesus as the ultimate fulfilment of the love command (15:13; 21:19; 1 John 3:16). To sum up, communion is a key identity marker of the divine family. This mystical, divine communion is characterized, even constituted, by the perpetual flow of life, light, love, truth and honour between its members. For believers,

38. A related concept is that of believers as Jesus’ friends (the noun φίλος (‘friend’) is a derivative of φιλεῖν (‘to love’)). For Aristotle, friendship is an external good necessary for happiness and he devotes two whole chapters to the topic (Nic. eth. VIII–IX). For the concept of friendship, see Chapter 4, n. 105. 39. Van der Watt notes that while ἀλήθεια in Greek philosophy refers more to existential reality, ἀλήθεια with a verb of action is a Semitism (‘John’s Perception’, 439). 40. See also Nielsen, who states that believers share in the divine δόξα and are included in the divine community (‘Narrative Structures’, 359–61). 41. ‘Give honour to God’ in 9:24 is, like in Josh 7:19 LXX, an exhortation to tell the truth (Schnackenburg, Gospel according to St John, 2:252; Beasley-Murray, John, 158).

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

159

communion is to be drawn into and to partake in the relationship that the Father and Son share.42 We can go so far as to say that the divine identity is communion, and believers share or participate in this divine identity.43 These essential properties of life, light, love, truth and honour that characterize the communion in the divine family also shape the believers’ identity and provide their intrinsic worth. Hence, the moral values that characterize the Father and Son and direct their actions, also determine the believer’s character and conduct. This implies that Johannine ethics is broader than behaviour and also relates to identity. 5.2.2 Family Behaviour and Identity Shaping Becoming part of God’s family results in a new identity but also elicits a new mode of conduct, corresponding to the divine family ethos. As believers exist in the divine realm, they are instructed on how to behave morally in line with its beliefs, values and norms. In the previous section, we saw that the divine moral qualities of life, light, love, truth and honour do not just constitute the believers’ identity but also drive their behaviour. In fact, the Johannine literature stresses the correlation between identity/being and behaviour/doing. John 8:39-47 demonstrates the dynamics between identity and behaviour, and brings into sharp focus the existence of two mutually exclusive families (see also Section 4.1.3). When οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, seeking to clarify their identity, claim that Abraham is their father, Jesus says that if that were the case they would show corresponding behaviour (8:39). The ‘if you were . . . you would do’ construction (it is repeated in 8:42) clarifies that identity demands matching behaviour, and conversely, that behaviour reveals identity. As it is, the conduct of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι does not mimic Abraham’s but that of a different father (8:40-41). Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι then claim that God is their Father but again Jesus points out that their behaviour does not show that they belong to God’s family (8:41-42). Their behaviour shows that they share the devil’s identity and choose (θέλειν) to imitate his behaviour; their behaviour results from their identity and is volitional (8:44). Indeed, the conduct of οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι is consistent with this identity – they sin (8:24), lie (8:33, 55), seek to kill Jesus (8:37, 40, 59), are averse to the truth and do not understand the words of Jesus/God (8:43, 45, 47), insult Jesus (8:48) and dishonour him (8:49).44 Thus, identity informs and shapes behaviour, and conversely, behaviour reveals and validates identity. This correlation between identity and behaviour is highlighted throughout John’s Gospel. Jesus only does what he sees the Father do and speaks as the Father

42. See also Turner, ‘Churches of the Johannine Letters’, 55. 43. See also the concept of relational ontology in Chapter 4, n. 153. 44. See also van der Watt, ‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, 423–36. Elsewhere, van der Watt notes the contrasts of origin – οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι are ἐκ the world/devil (8:23, 44) while Jesus and believers are ἐκ above/God (8:23, 42, 47). People’s origin determines their group affiliation and consequently their actions towards that group (Family of the King, 192, 199–200).

160

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

instructs him (3:32; 5:19; 7:16; 8:26, 28; 15:15); he only seeks to do the Father’s will and successfully complete the Father’s work (3:34; 5:30, 36; 9:4; 17:4; 19:30). Jesus’ behaviour is in keeping with his identity as the Son in constant communion with the Father. But Jesus’ actions also reveal to people who he is – he testifies to the truth because he is the truth; he shows love because he is love; he gives life and light because he is life and light. Jesus expects to see a similar correspondence between identity and behaviour in believers. To his followers, Jesus stresses that keeping his commandments shows their love for him (14:15, 21, 23) and guarantees his abiding love (15:10). Similarly, their loving one another is a testimony to their identity as Jesus’ disciples (13:35). Thus, behaviour reveals and affirms or authenticates identity. Elsewhere, Jesus asserts that abiding in him, that is, being in relationship with him (identity), warrants bearing fruit (behaviour) (15:4-5), and in turn, their bearing fruit will reveal identity (15:8). To οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι who initially believed, Jesus says that if they continue to adhere to his teaching (behaviour), they would prove to be his disciples (identity) (8:31) – but sadly they do not, as the rest of the chapter shows. 1 John is also replete with examples of this correlation between identity and behaviour: (i) anyone claiming to have communion with God (identity) must show matching behaviour; conversely, one who ‘walks’ in the light or darkness (behaviour) is in the light or darkness (identity) (1 John 1:6-7; 2:9-11); (ii) keeping God’s commandments (obedience) affirms one’s communion with God (one knows God and is ‘in him’) and one’s share in the divine attributes of truth and love (identity) (1 John 2:3-6); (iii) identity and behaviour are inseparable in either family – to do right (to do no sin) is to be right, to be of God; conversely, to commit sin is to be of the devil (1 John 3:7-10); (iv) when God’s love abides in the believer (identity), it must result in corresponding behaviour (1 John 3:17), just as to ‘love in truth’ (behaviour) demonstrates that one is of the truth (identity) (1 John 3:1819); (v) to love (behaviour) is to be (born) of God who is love, and guarantees one’s communion with him (identity) (1 John 4:7-8, 12); (vi) to testify (behaviour) shows communion with God (identity) (1 John 4:15); (vii) love (an identity marker) is inextricably linked with, even defined by, obedience (behaviour) (1 John 5:2-3).45 The picture that emerges is that believers’ inclusion in the divine identity must precipitate transformed behaviour that reflects the divine family code. Believers (should) behave like children of God because that is who they are. For example, believers should love God and one another because love has become part of their identity. Believers should testify to the truth because they have knowledge of and belong to the truth. The believers’ ongoing access to the divine reality results in a growing awareness of who God is, what he does, and what he expects from people. This moral knowledge should motivate believers to do what is right (cf. 13:17), which, in turn, is transformative – right behaviour affirms, strengthens and shapes one’s identity. Continuing acts of discipleship (behaviour), such as believing, loving, following, abiding, obedience, serving and testifying, authenticate and

45. Frey argues that in reflecting an ethos of separation from pagan cults or the Gentile world, 1 John adopts a Diaspora Jewish ethos (‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 174–77).

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

161

shape the family bond between the believer, God and fellow believers (identity). These acts of discipleship are tangible expressions of acceptable family behaviour, which reveal the believers’ identity (they are God’s children because they behave as such; cf. 15:14) and ensure they stay in the divine family. Thus, there is a reciprocal, transformative dynamic between identity and behaviour; each has the potential to shape the other. 5.2.3 Conclusion This section has shown how the divine family is the proper context of Johannine ethics. When people enter God’s family they rediscover who they are, where they belong and how they should behave. I argued that John’s presentation of believers as part of God’s family has profound implications for both their identity and behaviour. First, I established the most significant identity markers: (i) believers are ‘from above’ (part of the divine reality) and ‘children of God’ (part of the divine family); (ii) they ‘have’ the Spirit in that they partake of the Spirit and the Spirit ‘indwells’ them; (iii) they are included in the unique divine identity, sharing in the moral goods of life, light, love, truth and honour. God’s family is thus the locus of moral transformation and believers are brought into this relational realm through the Spirit.46 The believer’s participation in the divine relationship is dynamic and sharing in this divine identity is profoundly transformative, affecting one’s being, thinking and doing.47 We noted a transformative correlation between identity and behaviour where identity informs, shapes and drives behaviour, and in turn, behaviour reveals, affirms and strengthens identity. Johannine ethics thus relates to both behaviour and identity. In the next section, we will explore the extent to which mimesis is part of or relates to these divine family dynamics.

5.3 Mimesis as Family Ethics In Section 5.1, I argued that ethics is woven into the fabric of the Johannine literature. I claimed that when people become part of the divine realm where God lives and rules, moral transformation occurs where both their identity and behaviour are being shaped by the moral character, values and actions that characterize God.

46. Contra Gitte Buch-Hansen, who presents a Stoic reading of John’s Gospel to argue that the believer’s (ontological) transformation is caused by an infusion of (material) πνεῦμα (“It Is the Spirit That Gives Life”: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel, BZNW 173 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010)). 47. Van der Watt rightly identifies Johannine ethics as relational ethics (‘John’s Perception’, 443). Glen Lund also views Johannine ethics as Spirit-guided relational ethics, where Jesus functions as an ethical model for imitation (‘The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 278–89). For the idea that relationships enable the believers’ ethical life, see Chapter 6.

162

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

In Section 5.2, I showed that Johannine ethics is primarily family ethics, that is, ethics related to the believer’s existence within the family of God. In this section, we proceed to establish the link between John’s concept of mimesis and his family ethics. Since both mimesis and ethics in John have two intertwined components – behaviour and identity – they shall be the focus of the sections below. 5.3.1 Mimesis as Family Behaviour While many scholars have considered Johannine ethics to be a problematic area since the 1970s, this view has not led to its demise, and some scholars have even found a way of recovering ethics in John. Methodologically, we identified in Section 1.4 two related approaches to Johannine ethics that seem most fruitful for our study. The first analytical category for Johannine ethics is ethos. Although ethos usually refers to the lived-out behaviour of a particular social group, it could also refer to the moral values and expected behaviour that an author indicates in his writings. Jan van der Watt, especially, has used this methodological approach effectively.48 Second, we noted that much of John’s ethics is implicit, that is, the Johannine writings have an underlying ethics that communicates the beliefs, values and norms that are expected from believers. This broader approach to (Johannine) ethics is especially advocated by Ruben Zimmermann.49 In sum, Johannine ethics is primarily narrative ethics where John seeks to communicate a certain ethos that is embedded in the Johannine narrative in terms of the beliefs, norms and values of God’s family, of which believers are part.50 Applying this approach to mimesis, I suggest that the aim of mimesis is to shape and promote acceptable behaviour that corresponds to the ethos (i.e. beliefs, values and norms) of God’s family as the Johannine narrative presents it. Just as, for John, belief in Jesus and allegiance to him in discipleship is the proper soteriological response,51 so we can say that mimesis is the proper ethical or behavioural response to Jesus. The Johannine concept of mimesis is primarily a form of family behaviour where God sets the example for Jesus, and Jesus largely sets the example of appropriate family behaviour for believers to imitate. I will elaborate. Most occurrences of performative mimesis relate to the Son–Father behaviour and the believer–Jesus behaviour in the context of the divine family. For example, 48. Van der Watt, ‘Ethics and Ethos’, 147–76; idem, ‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, 421–48. See also Frey, ‘“Ethical” Traditions’, 167–203. 49. Zimmermann, ‘Implicit Ethics’, 399–423; idem, ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 62–67; idem, ‘Narrative Ethik’, 133–70. See also Hirsch-Luipold, ‘Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur’, 289–307. 50. For John’s narrative ethics, see also Hays, Moral Vision, 138–57. The essays by Michael Labahn and Ruben Zimmermann in Rethinking the Ethics of John (see Chapter 1, n. 13 for bibliographical details) also indicate related approaches such as narrative ethics, implicit ethics and responsive ethics. See also the brief discussion of broader approaches to ethics in van Henten and Verheyden, ‘Introduction’, 6–8. 51. See Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, ch. 3.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

163

in Chapter 3, we saw that the Father models for the Son specific activities of giving life, speaking the truth, expressing love, sending into the world and bestowing honour. Since the Father and Son form the nucleus of the divine family, we might say that these instances of divine mimesis constitute family behaviour. We then learnt in Sections 5.1–5.2 that Christology directs ethics where the believers’ behaviour is shaped by the personal example and teachings of Jesus.52 Just as believers share in the divine identity, so their behaviour is (to be) modelled on that of Jesus – it is mimetic behaviour. Jesus often articulates and exemplifies the mimetic behaviour he expects from his followers. In Chapter 4, we found that the mimetic imperatives to serve and love one another are aimed primarily (but not exclusively) at fellow family members. Other forms of mimesis where the believer is exhorted to imitate divine behaviour include doing Jesus’ works (14:12; i.e. to continue or be involved in his mission), to obey (15:10), to show a particular way of life (1 John 2:6), to purify oneself (1 John 3:3), to lay down one’s life, which is the ultimate fulfilment of the mimetic love command (1 John 3:16; cf. 13:34; 15:13) and brings honour to God (21:19). In some instances a mimetic chain is apparent: the Father sends the Son, who in turn sends the disciples; the Father teaches the Son, the Son teaches the disciples, and the Spirit continues this education;53 the Father ordains the Son to have life in himself, the Son gives life to people, and believers become derivative sources of life for others. As for motivation for mimetic behaviour, believers should not simply imitate Jesus to keep his commandments. Rather, since Jesus is the paradigmatic obedient Son in perfect communion with the Father and believers are part of this family and share the divine identity, they should want to reflect Jesus’ identity and imitate him. In other words, identity should drive believers’ behaviour, which is typically mimetic behaviour. 5.3.2 Mimesis and Family Identity Johannine ethics is not just about behaviour but also about a particular state of being in the world in relation to God and other human beings. Johannine mimesis, as a subset of Johannine ethics, is expected to shape the believer’s identity or character. In fact, both existential and performative mimesis affect the believer’s identity. Existential Mimesis and Identity. The believers’ relocation from the world below to the world above creates a new identity – they have become ἐκ θεοῦ and 52. See also Matera, New Testament Ethics, 94, 111–13; van der Watt, ‘Social Redefinition’, passim. 53. Van der Watt observes that education is an important family activity, undertaken for the sake of ethics (Family of the King, 206–9, 266–86; ‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’, 424–28). Other scholars also note the idea of imitation in the context of family and/or education in Jewish and Graeco-Roman antiquity (e.g. sons imitated their father to learn a trade): de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 25–26, 42–44; Wilkins, Discipleship, chs. 1–3; Collinson, Making Disciples, 12–23; Witmer, Divine Instruction, 97–98; Brown, Gospel according to John, 1:218; Keener, Gospel of John, 648–49; Lincoln, Gospel according to Saint John, 202; Brant, John, 105–6.

164

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

are no longer ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. Their new identity is modelled after Jesus, who is not ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου (17:14, 16), and their participation in the divine identity constitutes them as members of God’s family. Nevertheless, believers are sent back into the world, just as Jesus was sent (17:18; 20:21), and exist in this world with their new mimetic identity. In relation to believers’ existence in the world, we noted in Section 4.4 three clusters of existential mimesis: (i) believers are where Jesus is, in God’s family, which means being in relationship with God and fellow believers; (ii) believers are not of the world, yet they are sent into the world in order to be representatives of God’s love in the world; (iii) believers are expected to be righteous (through right behaviour), and develop other characteristics God approves of, and eventually be transformed into the likeness (i.e. humanity) of Jesus. Believers’ mimetic existence in the world as members of the divine family, as Jesus’ emissaries and living examples of God’s love will naturally affect their identity. Believers’ mimetic existence in the divine family, in union with the Father and Son and fellow believers, naturally shapes their identity, just as a child’s existence in a human family with parents and siblings shapes identity. Being Jesus’ emissary in the world provides believers with a legitimate status and role, which is expected to shape their identity. Finally, the believers’ transformation at the Parousia (1 John 3:2) is unlikely to be an instant mutation (the metamorphosis from one state into another) but a gradual, evolutionary shaping of their identity over time. Performative Mimesis and Identity. Performative mimesis also shapes identity because the imitator seeks to become like the one he imitates. Therefore, while performative mimesis concerns the believer’s imitation of Jesus in particular actions or modes of behaviour, its aim is to become like Jesus. Believers imitate Jesus in sacrificial service, loving others, and so on, so that they become people characterized by service and love. We have noted that performative mimesis often involves taking on a particular identity. For example, the scandal of the footwashing lies in the total reversal of status and role: ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ διδάσκαλος acts as, and identifies with, δοῦλος (13:13-16). Allegiance to this δοῦλος-κύριος then demands that οἱ μαθηταί must be δοῦλοί to one another too. The implication is that in order to imitate Jesus’ action of humble service, the imitator must adopt or partake in Jesus’ slave-identity in the act of mimesis.54 Thus, the challenge for Jesus’ followers is that authentic sacrificial service is inextricably linked to adopting a δοῦλοςidentity. Conversely, the mimetic act of serving others affirms and further shapes one’s δοῦλος-identity. Jesus serves because he has become a slave, so his identity drives his behaviour. In other instances, we also observed a dialectic between mimetic behaviour and mimetic identity. For example, Jesus’ mimetic imperative in 13:34 is not simply to direct their behaviour but also to confirm their identity, as 13:35 clarifies, ‘By this everyone will know that you are my disciples (identity), if you have love for one another (behaviour).’ The transformation of believers into the likeness of Christ at the Parousia (1 John 3:2) will very likely be a gradual process, starting with a person’s entry into God’s family and culminating at the final day, but this existential mimesis 54. See also Thomas, Footwashing, 115–16.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

165

may be achieved as the believer imitates the divine behaviour as part of the divine family. Finally, in 1 John 3:7, ‘being righteous’ (identity) is the corollary of ‘doing what is right’ (behaviour), so that the believer imitates Jesus’ state of righteousness (existential mimesis) through the habitual practice of what is right. So for John, mimesis is a form of family ethics that shapes both character and conduct. 5.3.3 Conclusion The Johannine dialectic between identity and behaviour noted in Section 5.2 also applies to mimesis, although not in a simplistic way where identity is related to existential mimesis and behaviour to performative mimesis. First, the strong presence of existential mimesis (which accounts for a third of all mimetic occurrences) stresses the shaping of a person’s identity or character, but this mimesisshaped identity is also expected to drive behaviour.55 Second, performative mimesis does not simply shape behaviour but also identity. This means mimesis shapes both the believer’s behaviour and identity within the context of the divine family. In fact, mimesis seems to be a crucial mechanism for negotiating the dialectic or reciprocal relationship between the believer’s behaviour and identity in the divine family.

5.4 The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics Having outlined John’s concept of mimesis and the nature of his ethics, we are now in a position to consider where we should situate mimesis in the larger field of Johannine ethics. I will pursue two lines of argument to suggest that mimesis occupies a central place in Johannine ethics. 5.4.1 The Statistical Argument I will focus on the most prominent form of mimesis in John to argue my case, namely the believer’s mimesis of Jesus and occasionally God.56 I suggest a simple

55. Based on some Pauline texts, Stefaniw also observes that mimesis relates to identity formation: ‘If ethics is imitation of the divine, it is no longer about mere behaviour. . . . Now we are talking in a more complex way about ethics as ontology, about acquiring a certain ethical state through a process of assimilation.’ (‘Disciplined Mind’, 242–43). Stefaniw’s category of ethical ontology corresponds with my category of existential mimesis. 56. I could make a similar case regarding the Son–Father mimesis, but it is difficult, methodologically, to relate this intra-divine mimesis to ethics because ethics usually relates to human relationships. I will, however, stress that, for John, divine mimesis is expressed in a variety of behaviours. So, while 5:19-20 speaks of the Son–Father mimesis in a broad, general sense (Jesus imitates the Father in everything), specific mimetic activities include giving life (5:21), speaking (8:26, 28; 12:50; 15:15), loving (15:9), honouring (17:22a) and sending (20:21). Hence, we may conclude that mimesis is central to divine interaction.

166

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

two-step procedure to determine the place of mimesis in Johannine ethics. First, taking the most rewarding route into Johannine ethics – to study the values, norms and behaviour embedded in the Johannine narrative – I will identify a list of verbs that indicate moral behaviour or existence in the Johannine writings. Second, I will determine which of these moral activities mimesis is connected with. This should give an indication of the place of mimesis in Johannine ethics. An examination of the Johannine writings would reveal the following behavioural and existential activities in relation to believers, and which ones involve mimesis: 57,58,59,60,61,62

Activities of Behaviour or Existence

Mimesis

to abide or remain to ask (the Father in Jesus’ name) to be in or sent into the world to be like Jesus to be not of the world to be one or in to be righteous to be where Jesus is to bear fruit57 to believe58 to do a particular action59 to follow Jesus to forgive sins60 to harvest or draw people61 to know or be in the know to live or be alive to love one another to obey to purify oneself to serve or lay down one’s life for one another to testify to walk in the light or truth62

— — 17:18; 20:21; 1 John 4:17 1 John 3:2 17:14, 16 17:11, 21, 22 1 John 3:7 12:26; 14:3; 17:24 — — 14:12 (do Jesus’ works) — — — 10:14-15 6:57; 14:19 13:34; 15:12; 1 John 4:11 15:10 1 John 3:3 13:14-15; 1 John 3:16 — 1 John 2:6

Mimetic Strength

strong medium strong strong strong strong

medium

weak weak strong strong medium strong/medium strong

I observe that fourteen of these twenty-two activities (i.e. 64%) are related to, or actualized by, mimesis. Although these mimetic activities have various degrees

57. I do not count the mimesis in 15:4 as this does not relate to the believer–Jesus/God mimesis but to believers ‘imitating’ branches. 58. In John 6:29, πιστεύειν is identified as ἔργον. 59. Cf. ποιεῖν in John 13:15; 14:12; 15:14; 1 John 1:6; 2:29; 3:7, 22; 5:2. Zimmermann also draws attention to the ethical dimension of ποιεῖν (‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’, 52–53). 60. John 20:23. 61. John 4:35-38; 21:6-8. 62. John uses ‘truth’ as an ethical category because it refers to the reality of who God is (14:6) and ‘to do the truth’ (1 John 1:6) and ‘to walk in the truth’ (2 John 4; 3 John 3-4) refers to a way of life that reflects the divine reality.

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

167

of mimetic strength, it seems reasonable to conclude that mimesis is a dominant aspect of Johannine ethics. This shows that Jesus (and sometimes God) sets the example for appropriate family existence and behaviour that he expects his disciples to adopt through mimesis. 5.4.2 The Argument from the Nature of the Divine–Human Relationship In addition to the statistical evidence, another argument for the centrality of mimesis in Johannine ethics is that it is integral to the divine–human relationship. I will argue that the divine identity and behaviour is modelled to believers by means of mimesis. The claim that mimesis is central to the dynamics of the divine family is based on the initial finding in Chapter 3 of a mimetic chain where the Father sets the example for the Son to imitate, and in turn the Son sets the example for his followers to imitate. We learnt that through the Son–Father mimesis believers share in the divine identity characterized by the moral goods of life, light, love, truth and honour because in imitating the Father, Jesus mediates these moral commodities to people. While we suggested this in our conclusion to Chapter 3, we are now in a position to expand on the subject. The relationship between the Father and Son, in which believers share, is characterized by the moral values of life, light, love, truth and honour. Believers can share in these divine values or attributes because they are extended to them through mimesis, shaping both their identity and behaviour. Regarding life, just as the Father has granted that the Son be a source of life in imitation of him (5:21, 26), so believers become an auxiliary source of life in imitation of Jesus (4:14; 7:38-39; 17:20). In other words, just as the Son lives because of the Father, so believers live because of the Son (6:57; 14:19). Hence, life is ‘passed on’ as it were via a mimetic chain from the Father to the Son to believers to potential believers. As for love, Jesus imitates the Father in a sacrificial act motivated by love: just as the Father’s love for the world caused him to give up his Son, so Jesus’ love for the world led him to give up his life. The mimetic chain of love is also evident: the Son loves the disciples just as the Father loves him (15:9), so the disciples (should) love one another in imitation of Jesus loving them (13:34; 15:12). Regarding truth, Jesus imitates the Father’s speech (8:26, 28; 12:50). Since truth is the essence of divine speech (8:31-32), Jesus imitates the Father and is a source of truth for people through his teaching. Believers then, become a source of truth for other people because their testimony is modelled on Jesus’ teaching, where the Spirit of truth, who imitates Jesus’ speech, communicates the truth to them (15:26-27; 16:12-15; 17:20).63 This mimetic aspect of truth is more abstract or derivative because although it is rooted in the mimetic language of speech at the textual level, it surfaces more at the conceptual level of John’s theology. Although the Johannine literature does not mention a Son–Father mimesis regarding light (perhaps because light is linked

63. Cf. the state of knowledge between Jesus and believers in imitation of the shared knowledge between him and the Father in 10:14-15.

168

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

to God only once – in 1 John 1:5), there is arguably an implied mimesis in the depiction of John the Baptist as a derivative ‘light’ imitating Jesus as he faithfully testifies to the Light. In 5:35, John is characterized as a ‘lamp’ (λύχνος) that shines (the verb φαίνειν occurs in John’s Gospel only here and in 1:5 in reference to the Logos) and provides ‘light’ (except for this occurrence, φῶς is used exclusively with reference to Jesus or God). John’s ability to provide light refers to his activity of testifying to the Light, which elicits belief (1:7; 1:35-37; 10:41-42). By extension, believers are also called to testify to the Light (15:27) and since their testimony has the potential to provide light (17:20), it could be argued that believers ‘imitate’ Jesus as light. Nevertheless, we cannot push this idea too far. Regarding honour, just as the Father honours the Son, so also the Son honours believers (17:22), although we noted that this is a ‘weak’ case of mimesis. In sum, the core attributes and activities that characterize the Father–Son relationship also inform and shape the believers’ identity and behaviour through the mechanism of mimesis.64 In fact, identity drives behaviour. Just as the identity of the Father and Son in terms of life, light, love, truth and honour drives their actions towards people (they give life and light, show love, speak the truth and bestow honour), so these values or attributes shape the believers’ identity and behaviour through the Son–Father mimesis. Thus, divine identity and behaviour is modelled to believers by mimesis, hence mimesis is instrumental for the divine–human relationship. In other words, the Son–Father mimesis is for the sake of people – the Son imitates the Father in order to extend various moral goods to people. It is thus reasonable to conclude that mimesis is central to John’s family ethics because mimesis largely shapes the believer’s relationship with God. Nevertheless, we noted that regarding the believers’ participation in the divine relationship, the role of mimesis in accessing or mediating the dominant moral values varies. I argued that the mimetic strength of the believer’s participation in the divine life and love is ‘strong’, ‘medium’ regarding truth, and ‘weak’ regarding light and honour. The mimetic chain operates as follows: (i) the Son–Father mimesis benefits believers; (ii) the believer–Jesus/God mimesis benefits other believers and non-believers. We can thus speak of a mimetic family identity and behaviour.

5.5 Conclusion In this chapter, we examined how mimesis relates to the broader discipline of Johannine ethics. First, I showed that ethics is woven into the fabric of the Johannine writings where John presents a moral narrative in which a moral

64. Other mimetic activities of the Son–Father dynamic also inform the mimetic behaviour of believers. For example, in the activity of sending, there is a mimetic chain from the Father sending the Son into the world to the Son’s sending of his followers likewise into the world. Jesus’ mission to carry out the Father’s work is the mimetic basis for the disciples’ mission to continue this divine work (17:18; 20:21).

The Place of Mimesis in Johannine Ethics

169

God seeks to save immoral people and bring them into his family where moral transformation can occur.65 Then, I argued that Johannine ethics is family ethics, affecting both the believer’s identity and behaviour. Subsequently, I showed the connection between mimesis and ethics in that mimesis is the primary mechanism to negotiate the dialectic between the believer’s identity and behaviour within the context of the divine family. In fact, the core attributes and activities that depict the Son–Father relationship (to give life, to give light, to show love, to speak truth, to bestow honour) inform and shape the believers’ identity and behaviour precisely through the Son–Father mimesis, and hence believers have a mimetic identity and behaviour. In short, the Johannine concept of mimesis is fundamental to the divine family dynamics where Jesus imitates the Father and sets the example for believers to imitate. Thus, the most important finding of this chapter is that mimesis is intrinsically related to behaviour and identity. Since almost twothirds of behavioural and existential activities in the Johannine writings relate to mimesis, it is a dominant marker (perhaps even the dominant marker) of family identity and behaviour. Based on these findings, I draw two conclusions. First, mimesis is central to Johannine ethics and hence, Johannine ethics is mimetic ethics. Although this seems an audacious claim, it is conceivable when we consider that the most prominent forms of Johannine ethics – service and love – are expressed by mimetic imperatives (13:15, 34; 15:12; 1 John 3:16; 4:11). While van der Watt and others have rightly classified Johannine ethics as relational or response ethics, I view Johannine ethics more precisely as mimetic ethics (which would include the relational/response aspect).66 Second, if mimesis is the primary means by which John envisages the believers’ identity and behaviour will be shaped, then mimesis is instrumental to moral transformation. Having obtained a deeper and broader understanding of the concept of mimesis in the Johannine writings, we will turn to the last issue in our study – a discussion on what or who enables such mimesis.

65. Instead of claiming that the Johannine writings are moral narratives in their entirety (let alone systematic ethical treatises like Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics), I merely contend that many key terms and concepts in John have a moral aspect or dimension. 66. Van der Watt, ‘John’s Perception’, 443–44; idem, ‘Working the Works of God’, 138–41; idem, ‘John and the Epistles of John’, in Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Ethics, ed. Robert L. Brawley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 445–46; Hartin, ‘Remain in Me’, 354– 55; Lund, ‘Joys and Dangers’, 280–87 (although Lund recognizes the aspect of imitation); Rabens, ‘Johannine Perspectives’, 120–33; Weyer-Menkhoff, Ethik des Johannesevangeliums, 185–95.

Chapter 6 Mimetic Empowerment

Mimesis naturally calls for a volitional act – the imitator must perform a tangible deed that imitates the original. But where does this volition come from? Do believers draw from some inner strength or resolve? What or who empowers believers for mimesis? Two examples will show why we must discuss this issue. First, regarding the footwashing, we learnt that Jesus’ imperative in 13:15 calls for a mimetic act that is sacrificial and humble in nature. While 13:14-17 provides a rationale for the mimesis and a promise of blessing for those who carry it out, the question is whether this is sufficient to empower disciples for such an act of total self-giving. The second example relates to the most explicit Johannine ethic – the love command. Jesus indicates that his followers should actualize the love command through mimesis (13:34; 15:12), and that this love is sacrificial and limitless in nature – it may cost one’s life (13:1; 15:13; 1 John 3:16-18; 4:11). In both cases, the believer is expected to imitate Jesus in a volitional act that may demand all. This leads us to ask, ‘What or who empowers for such mimesis?’ This chapter, therefore, seeks to establish the source(s) of empowerment for the believers’ mimetic behaviour in the Johannine literature. I will argue that mimetic empowerment occurs in relationship with Jesus under the direction of the Spirit. First, I will demonstrate that mimesis arises out of a relationship with Jesus, which motivates and empowers for mimesis (Section 6.1). Second, I will argue that memory also empowers mimesis (Section 6.2). Third, I will show that John presents the Spirit as a moral agent, who empowers believers for mimesis (Section 6.3).

6.1 Relational Empowerment The idea that the believers’ relationship with Jesus empowers for mimesis is rooted in the notion that an imitator is dependent on the one who shows the example. This is evident in the paradigm for the Son–Father mimesis in John 5:19-20. Jesus asserts that he cannot do anything apart from the Father (οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν; 5:19a) but observes what the Father is doing (τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα) and then imitates him (5:19b). The Son can imitate the Father because the Father shows him all that he is doing (πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς

172

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

ποιεῖ) (5:20; cf. 3:35). This establishes an important (albeit obvious) principle of mimesis: showing is the basis for imitation. By extension, the imitator can imitate only what has been observed or revealed. In this case, the Father hides nothing from the Son but shows him everything so that the Son can perfectly imitate him.1 The force of 5:19-20 is that the absolute unity between the Father and Son lies in the Son’s complete dependence on the Father and the Father’s complete revelation to the Son. The Son–Father mimesis is rooted in their intimate unity. In other words, the Son’s intimate relationship with the Father where the Father shows everything to the Son is what enables the Son to imitate the Father. The branches–vine metaphor in John 15 shows that the disciple–Jesus mimesis follows a similar principle. Jesus tells his disciples that apart from him they cannot do anything (χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν); it is only by abiding in him that they can bear fruit (15:4-5).2 The mimetic analogy between the disciples–Jesus relationship and that of the branches and the vine is straightforward. Branches can only bear fruit as long as they are attached to the vine because all the nutrients come to them through the vine. Similarly, as long as disciples abide in a relationship with Jesus, they will receive what they need to bear fruit. In effect, the branches–vine metaphor confirms the idea of abiding as relational empowering. Although the mimesis in 15:4 simply indicates that, in imitation of the branches, the disciples’ abiding in Jesus facilitates discipleship (‘the bearing of fruit’), their relationship with Jesus probably also empowers them to imitate him. Just as the prerequisite for fruitfulness is an intimate relationship between believers and Jesus, the natural implication is that such an intimate relationship also enables the believers’ mimesis. When Jesus says in 15:5 that believers can do nothing apart from him (χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν), it would naturally extend to mimetic behaviour. In other words, the believer’s total dependence on Jesus in relationship with him is what empowers for imitation. The case for relational empowerment for mimesis becomes stronger when we look, again, at the footwashing in John 13. In 13:4-5, 12a, Jesus performs the action that needs imitation not only before the disciples (i.e. in front of them) so that they can observe what needs imitation, but also for the disciples (i.e. for their sake). Only when the disciples have been the beneficiaries of Jesus’ act of humble, loving service, are they commanded, and probably empowered, to do likewise for one another (13:14-15). The mimetic imperative in 13:15 (‘you also should do’) is prefixed not with the phrase ‘just as I have shown you’ but with ‘just as I have done

1. This was a familiar concept in antiquity: the son grew up in the trade or profession of the father by observing and imitating him. See also C.H. Dodd, ‘A Hidden Parable in the Fourth Gospel’, in idem, More New Testament Studies (Manchester: University Press, 1968), 30–40; van der Watt, Family of the King, 273–74. 2. Note the similarity between the phrase ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ οὐδὲν ἐὰν μή τι βλέπῃ τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα in 5:19 and τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ in 15:4. Just as the Father revealed everything to the Son (5:20), so Jesus revealed everything to his disciples (15:15).

Mimetic Empowerment

173

for you (καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν; cf. 13:12, γινώσκετε τί πεποίηκα ὑμῖν). Drawing attention to the use of ὑμῖν (both in 13:12 and in 13:15), Rudolf Bultmann thus remarks: It becomes immediately clear from the use of ὑμῖν [in v. 12b] that Jesus’ exemplary action is not just an illustration, floating as it were in empty space; on the contrary, the disciples have actually experienced it performed on themselves. . . . Jesus’ exemplary action is not to be regarded as an ideal illustration, or as a pattern or model of a universal moral truth, such as history (Historie) or rhetoric could depict; it has been experienced by the disciple as service. Only the man whom Jesus has served can see him as the ὑπόδειγμα. . . . He [Jesus] is only to be seen in that which on each occasion he is for me. Thus the imperative only holds good for the sphere in which Jesus’ service has been received – only the man who is loved can himself love; and its fulfilment is not by performing a work analogous to his, but by readiness for the same existing for the other.3

In addition, drawing attention to the root meaning of the word ὑπόδειγμα (13:15) from (ὑπο)δείκνυμι (‘to show’), Xavier Léon-Dufour suggests that ‘we might paraphrase Jesus’ words [in 13:15] this way: “By acting in this way, I enable you to act the same”.’4 The idea that Jesus demonstrates something for the sake of the disciples in order to empower them to imitate him is pervasive in the Johannine writings. For example, in 6:57, Jesus states that the believers’ new existence of being alive ‘imitates’ or mirrors his own. However, the previous verses indicate that this mimetic reality is only possible if one has an intimate relationship with Jesus. In 6:53-54, Jesus asserts that people participate in the divine life when they ‘eat his flesh’ and ‘drink his blood’, which is akin to coming to Jesus and believing in him (see 6:35).5 Then, in 6:56, he continues, saying that this metaphorical consumption results in an intimate relationship between him and the believer. The implication is that people’s participation in the divine life as a mimetic act only happens as they enter into an intimate relationship with him. Thus, the relationship of believers with Jesus enables their mimetic existence.6 Regarding the love command, Jesus

3. Bultmann, Gospel of John, 474–75 (original emphasis). However, Bultmann is mistaken in concluding that Jesus is not the example for imitation because he does not demand an action to be rendered to him in return but to one’s fellow disciple (Ibid., 475–76). 4. Xavier Léon-Dufour, To Act according to the Gospel (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005), 127 (emphasis added). 5. The sating of hunger and quenching of thirst of those who come to Jesus and believe in him in 6:35 parallels (and thus explains) the metaphorical consumption of Jesus’ flesh and blood in 6:53-54. 6. The tentative mimesis we noted in 8:38-39, where believers are called to imitate their Father (God) but not like οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι who imitate their father (the devil), is expressed in a context of intimate family relationships. Similarly, the mimesis in 1 John 2:6 (believers

174

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

states, ‘Just as I loved you, you also should love one another’ (13:34; 15:12; cf. 1 John 4:11). What is significant in the giving of the love command is that it is not given in a vacuum. The disciples have experienced Jesus’ love first-hand (e.g. the footwashing is a demonstration of Jesus’ love for his own εἰς τέλος in 13:1), so they, in turn, can love one another. Echoing the language of 13:15, we could say that Jesus’ love for his disciples is the ὑπόδειγμα (‘example’ or ‘pattern’) for their love for one another. But Jesus’ ὑπόδειγμα of love is more than just an object lesson or template for the disciples to follow. Having seen this love in action and experienced it for themselves, Jesus’ love is what motivates and empowers them to do likewise. In other words, the love that the disciples (and later believers) experience in relationship with Jesus enables them to love others. Similarly, in 1 John 3:16, the sacrificial mimesis called for is expressed as ‘he [Jesus] laid down his life on behalf of us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν), and we ought to lay down our lives on behalf of one another (ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν)’. Again, the idea is that believers are called to do something because Jesus has provided the example for their sake. In Chapter 5, we established that the divine family is the primary setting for John’s concept of mimesis but the reason has become clearer. It is because intimate relationships enable or empower mimesis. Jesus does not set an example for an unknown audience but for those in relationship with him. And it is as the first beneficiaries of Jesus’ actions that the disciples are empowered to imitate him. This indicates that the believer’s relationship with Jesus is not only the context in which mimesis occurs but also what enables mimesis. In short, God’s family is not only the locus for the believers’ mimesis but membership of the divine family also empowers them for mimesis. Only a few scholars have linked this idea of relational empowerment and mimesis. Willis Peter de Boer is one of the first scholars who points to the concept of relational empowering when he asserts that imitating Jesus means ‘living under the power and influence of what he has done for them [the disciples] and from this, developing a Christlikeness in living with one another’. According to him, imitation involves participation in Jesus’ life and is rooted in, and arises from, the fellowship and union with Christ. ‘Following Christ’s example . . . then is the bringing to expression of the Christian way which we have experienced in him and seen exemplified in him.’7 On the footwashing, Udo Schnelle concludes that the disciples cannot imitate Jesus out of their own strength but it is Jesus’ original act that enables them to imitate him. Schnelle argues that Jesus’ action is both Urbild (‘prototype’) and Vorbild (‘example’) for the disciples’ mimesis, and it is the former that empowers. If Jesus’ action was only Vorbild, then the disciples would have to rely on their

should show behaviour similar to that of Jesus) is directed to those who claim to be in an intimate relationship with him (ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν), and the existential mimesis in 1 John 3:2 (the believers’ future existence will imitate that of Jesus) addresses those in a relationship with God (τέκνα θεοῦ ἐσμεν). 7. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 52–58 (the quotations are from p. 56 and p. 58, respectively).

Mimetic Empowerment

175

own abilities, which would be impossible because only Jesus’ action enables the disciples’ actions.8 Although I agree with Schnelle’s conclusion, his distinction between Urbild and Vorbild seems artificial and can hardly be derived from the text. I prefer the idea that what empowers the disciples to imitate Jesus is that Jesus first modelled certain actions on behalf of or for the sake of the disciples. Although ὑπόδειγμα in 13:15 denotes an example or model of behaviour as something to be imitated (Schnelle’s Vorbild), it becomes an Urbild because of the καθώς . . . καί construction, that is, because Jesus did this first for the disciples. Jesus performed the action first for the benefit of his disciples, and as the recipients of his humble, loving service they are empowered to do likewise for one another. Volker Rabens has done pioneering work on the concept of relational empowering for ethical living in Paul and John.9 Regarding John, he argues that intimate, loving relationships enable the believers’ ethical life. Focusing on the love command, he observes that Jesus’ love is not only the model but also the enabling basis of the disciples’ love for one another.10 In the context of the Gospel’s family and friendship ethos, love expressed and experienced in intimate relationships empowers people for ethical living.11 Rabens then proposes a three-stage model: divine, initial love empowers human, responsive love, which results in further divine love.12 He concludes, ‘In John ethical life is empowered through the experience and example of love in an intimate relationship to Jesus and the Father.’13 I endorse Rabens’s model of relational empowering but suggest a modification. Although imitating Jesus’ example is one dynamic in his model, mimesis does not feature strongly in his model. This is probably because Rabens focuses on empowerment for ethical living, while I concentrate on empowerment for mimesis. Nevertheless, I contend that mimesis is more critical for ethical living than Rabens presents it. In Section 4.3.6, I concluded that the love command is actualized through mimesis in the context of the believer’s relationship with Jesus where they continually experience the divine love. With reference to Rabens’s model, I view mimesis as the crucial mechanism between the divine, initial love as the original act or ὑπόδειγμα, and the human, responsive love as the mimetic

8. Schnelle, ‘Johanneische Ethik’, 319. Elsewhere Schnelle comments on 13:15, ‘Das in der Fußwaschung Gestalt gewinnende Tun Jesu ist Voraussetzung [‘prerequisite’] und Ermöglichung [‘enablement’] des Liebesdienstes der Jünger. In seinem Tun ist Jesus Urbild und Vorbild zugleich (vgl. 1. Joh. 2,6), er gibt für die Jünger ein Paradigma christlicher Existenz und Lebensführung und begründet damit deren Handeln’ (Evangelium nach Johannes, 239). 9. Rabens, Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul, passim; idem, ‘Johannine Perspectives’, 114–39. 10. Rabens, ‘Johannine Perspectives’, 120–21. 11. Ibid., 120–30. Rabens also notes that John’s family ethics is not unique; ancient Jewish and Graeco-Roman traditions also stress that family is a place of ethical empowering and personal transformation (Ibid., 126, 134–38). 12. Ibid., 132–33. 13. Ibid., 134.

176

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

act. Yet, even though love is central to Johannine ethics, there are other significant ethical values and norms that are also actualized through mimesis. Love enables ethical living but so does humble service, obedience, unity, behaving like Jesus, being pure, righteous, and so on, and these ethical expressions are all actualized by mimesis (see Section 5.4.1). We also noted that mimesis is fundamental to the divine family dynamics where there is a perpetual flow of life, light, love, truth and honour among its members (see Section 5.4.2). In effect, it is mimesis that empowers for the ethical life and enables personal transformation. Intimate relationships empower for ethical living because at their heart the mechanism of mimesis actualizes various forms of the believers’ behaviour and existence. For John, then, at the heart of mimesis is relationship. Just as we noted above that the Son–Father mimesis is rooted in their intimate unity, so also is the disciple–Jesus mimesis rooted in the relationship that the believer has with Jesus. To put it differently, the believer’s bond with Jesus or membership in the divine family provides the empowering, motivational and experiential basis for mimesis.14 Although by reading the Johannine writings, believers can acquire understanding of (and even motivation for) mimesis, it is in their continued relationship with Jesus that they perceive or (re-)experience Jesus’ original example which empowers and motivates. Because I have experienced Jesus’ sacrificial service, I can serve others likewise. I (can) love because he first loves me (cf. 1 John 4:19); I (can) forgive because he forgives me; and so on. The dependence of the imitator on the one who sets the example – Jesus on the Father (5:19-20a) and the believer on Jesus (15:4-5) – indicates that mimesis is relational. Jesus only demands from his followers that which he has done first for them. Mimesis is not simply at the heart of the believer’s ‘personal’ relationship with Jesus but also central to the life of the community of faith.15 The Johannine literature contains various corporate metaphors to stress that the individual believer is embedded in a larger group or community superintended by Jesus and God: (i) the one flock united under Jesus in John 10; (ii) the vine and its branches in John 15; (iii) the divine family with God the Father, Jesus the Son and believers as God’s children and Jesus’ siblings; (iv) the community of believers with the Father and Son described as a κοινωνία in 1 John 1 (cf. the language of ‘oneness’ (εἶναι ἕν) and ‘indwelling’ (εἶναι ἐν) in John’s Gospel). When Jesus was about to depart from this world, he assured his followers of his ongoing presence with them by means of the indwelling Spirit (14:16-23). Jesus’ presence in the community of faith means believers have continued access to his example, which they can emulate, and as believers imitate Jesus, they also mediate him. For example, to

14. Similarly, van der Watt asserts that the filial relationship between God as Father and believers as children motivates for mimesis in 1 John (‘Ethos of Being Like Jesus’, 427). 15. I mean by ‘personal’ that the believer’s relationship with Jesus is individual but not private because first-century Mediterranean societies knew of the concept of the individual or person only as being embedded in a larger, corporate entity, such as family/household, association and so on.

Mimetic Empowerment

177

perform an authentic act of love in imitation of Jesus mediates the experience of Jesus and his love to the beneficiary. Indeed, the most explicit forms of mimetic behaviour are to love one another and to wash the feet of one another. Hence, the mimetic behaviour of members of the believing community serves to edify one another, individually and corporately. In sum, the practice of mimesis among believers strengthens the moral fabric of the community of faith.16

6.2 Mnemonic Empowerment Another part of the answer to the question of mimetic empowering lies in the concept of mimesis itself because in imitating Jesus, believers not only re-enact the original ὑπόδειγμα for others but also for themselves. Mimesis surely evokes the memory of what has been observed and experienced in the original act, so this re-creation of the believers’ experience of Jesus’ original act would motivate and empower their mimetic act. Raymond Collins thus contends regarding the love command, The memory of Jesus’ love for his own should serve as a motivating force, urging the disciples to love one another. . . . As with most covenant motifs, it is the memory of a divine favor in the past which creates future covenantal obligations. It is the memory of what Jesus is for the disciples which allows for the Johannine insertion of the love commandment in the farewell discourses.17

When mimesis jogs the imitator’s memory, it does more than just recall the original experience; it re-creates the experience.18 Hence, when the imitator re-enacts Jesus’ original example, it triggers the memory of the original act, and this memory, where the imitator re-lives or re-experiences Jesus’ act for him, motivates and empowers the imitator. To put it differently, memory empowers mimesis in that

16. For the formation of Christian character in community, see Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981), esp. chs. 6–7; Cahill, ‘Christian Character’, 3–17. 17. Collins, ‘New Commandment’, 118. 18. See also Donald L. Williams, who states that ‘to remember is not an intellectual discipline, “to re-member” is to re-create, “to re-member” is to become involved, “to re-member” is to actualize, “to re-member” is to re-present, “to re-member” is to respond’ (‘The Israelite Cult and Christian Worship’, in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays, ed. James M. Efird (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972), 121). Similarly, Tinsley asserts that to remember God’s past works is to appropriate and experience them in the present (Imitation of God, 54–55). For the importance of remembering for Israel’s covenantal behaviour, see Barat Ellman, Memory and Covenant: The Role of Israel’s and God’s Memory in Sustaining the Deuteronomic and Priestly Covenants (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013).

178

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

the act of remembering Jesus’ original act empowers the imitator to perform the mimetic act. For example, I can or should love others because in performing a loving act I remember (and re-experience) that Jesus has loved me. The idea that a mimetic act evokes the imitator’s memory of the original act coheres with our earlier observation that mimesis is a cognitive act (rather than a mindless cloning). Before elaborating this, I will explore John’s mnemonic language. The Johannine mnemonic language contains three terms: (i) μνησθῆναι (‘to remember’, ‘to recall’; 2:17, 22; 12:16); (ii) μνημονεύειν (‘to remember’, ‘to recall’; 15:20; 16:4, 21); (iii) ὑπομιμνῄσκειν (‘to remind’, ‘to call to mind’; 14:26; 3 John 10). I will examine these terms to determine whether there is a coherent Johannine concept of memory and how this might relate to mimesis. The subject of the middle verb μνησθῆναι is the disciples in all of its three occurrences. In 2:17, the disciples remember Scripture in response to Jesus’ action in the temple. It is not clear whether the disciples’ anamnesis occurs at the time of Jesus’ action in the temple or at a later stage. Then, when οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι challenge Jesus about his authority to act as he did in the temple, Jesus provokes them further by claiming that he can raise ‘this temple’ in three days if they destroy it (2:18-19). Οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι understand the referent of ‘temple’ to be the physical structure of Herod’s temple but John, in an aside, clarifies that Jesus was foretelling that he would rise again after οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι had killed him (2:20-21). John’s aside also reveals that the disciples remembered, after Jesus’ resurrection, that he had said this, and this anamnesis fostered belief in both the Scripture and Jesus’ words (2:22). We find a similar situation in 12:16. Both the crowd’s enthusiastic welcome of Jesus and Jesus’ decision to ride a donkey rather than a war horse in order to counter the crowd’s wrong expectations, are explained by references to Scripture (12:12-15). In 12:16, we learn that the disciples did not understand these things at first; only after Jesus’ glorification (i.e. after his death, resurrection and ascension) did they remember that these things were written of Jesus (in Scripture), and understand this event. The two adverbs of time and their correlated verbs – the disciples did not understand these things τὸ πρῶτον but only τότε (i.e. later) they remembered these things – strongly suggests that remembering the events led to or was accompanied by understanding them. These three occurrences of μνησθῆναι seem to suggest that the disciples’ anamnesis occurs mainly after Jesus’ ministry and relates specifically to the remembrance of Scripture (about Jesus) or Jesus’ own teaching, effecting understanding and belief.19 To put it plainly, for John, remembrance occurs for the sake of understanding and belief. The verb μνημονεύειν occurs twice in the literary unit 15:18–16:4a where Jesus forewarns his disciples of future persecution because of their allegiance to him. Jesus explains that his followers can expect a similar attitude and behaviour from

19. John A. Robinson calls this ‘deferred meaning’, that is, meaning that is not explicated when events occur but later, whether through recategorization or elaboration (‘Perspective, Meaning, and Remembering’, in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory, ed. by David C. Rubin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 201–2).

Mimetic Empowerment

179

the world as he was subjected to – hate and persecution (15:18-20). Jesus tells the disciples in 15:20 to remember (μνημονεύειν) what he said earlier, in 13:16, that ‘servants are not greater than their master’.20 Then, in 16:4a, Jesus clarifies the reason for his forewarnings of future persecution – that the disciples will remember his words when these events occur. In both cases, remembering Jesus’ teaching about the persecution they will face in the future enables the disciples to understand their trouble and put it in context. At the same time, Jesus encourages his disciples, using the analogy of a woman who forgets her labour pains, saying they too will no longer remember the distress of Jesus’ departure in light of the joy of his return (16:20-22).21 I will examine the third mnemonic term John uses (ὑπομιμνῄσκειν) in the next section because this relates to the Spirit. For now, I conclude that the Johannine concept of memory has two aspects: (i) the subject of remembrance is primarily the Scripture (in relation to what it says about Jesus) or Jesus’ own teaching; and following from this, (ii) remembrance occurs for the sake of understanding and belief.22 This mnemonic understanding can be an understanding of the Scripture about Jesus, an understanding of Jesus’ teaching or an understanding of the believer’s personal circumstances in the light of Jesus’ teaching.23 Having explained

20. What is interesting in this instance is that Jesus’ statement in 13:16 immediately follows his mimetic imperative for his disciples to provide humble, loving service for one another in imitation of Jesus’ original act for them. While we should not make too much of this, it is possible that the remembrance Jesus calls for in 15:20 would trigger the remembrance of not just 13:16 but the entire act of footwashing. 21. There is debate about the referents of Jesus’ going and return. The main options are: (i) Jesus’ departure in death and return in the resurrection; (ii) Jesus’ departure in the ascension and his return in the Spirit; (iii) Jesus’ departure in the ascension and his return in the Parousia; (iv) a double reference to options (i) and (ii) (which is the view I opt for). 22. Similarly, Larry W. Hurtado notes that Johannine remembrance is more than recollection and includes ‘a new understanding of Jesus’ pre-resurrection sayings and actions’ (‘Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John’, in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity, ed. David B. Capes et al. (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007), 208). 23. If remembrance in general involves the interpretation of the past, Johannine remembrance is specifically the scriptural interpretation of the past. For John, any memory of Jesus must be interpreted or understood in the light of scripture. Hence, scripture is instrumental in the creation and reconstruction of accurate memories about Jesus because it gives (new) meaning to past events. See also Richard Bauckham, who states, ‘The memories of the passion and death of Jesus must have been the most obstinate meaningless and at the same time the most unforgettable of the traditions, even in the light of the resurrection. It took scriptural interpretation, which is now woven into the passion narratives, to make these memories even tolerable, but also unexpectedly full of inexhaustible meaning’ (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006),  353). While one could argue that John’s mnemonic language primarily relates to

180

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

the Johannine concept of memory, I will now seek to relate this to contemporary theories of human memory and how memory relates to mimesis in John.24 Like mimesis, memory belongs to the field of cognitive psychology. According to the standard dictionaries, memory is the ability of an organism to store, retain and recall information and experiences. There is considerable debate about the accuracy of the storage process (because all events are interpreted through sensory and cognitive processes) and whether the recollection of an event or experience produces an exact version of what was stored or a creative reconstruction of it.25 Cognitive scientists distinguish between individual and social memory. Individual memory can refer to various sub-types of memory, such as personal event memory or episodic memory (memory of events people have personally experienced), factual or semantic memory (memory of facts people have learnt from external sources), and procedural memory (memory of how to do or operate things).26 Social memory refers to the shared or collective memory of a group.27

Scripture rather than mimesis, it also involves remembering Jesus’ teaching, which includes his mimetic imperatives. 24. More broadly, Tom Thatcher argues that there is a close relationship between social memory and community ethics (‘memory molds the past in mnemonic frames that reflect the values that sustain group life and identity’), and then applies principles of social memory theory to examine the Johannine appropriation of the Cain and Abel story in 1 John 3 (‘Cain the Jew the AntiChrist: Collective Memory and the Johannine Ethic of Loving and Hating’, in van der Watt and Zimmermann, Rethinking the Ethics of John, 350–73 (quotation from p. 364)). 25. See further Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, ch. 13. While Dale C. Allison questions the reliability of memory (see his Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History (London: SPCK, 2010)), Richard Bauckham has recently argued that Allison has misunderstood the results of research on memory in cognitive psychology (‘The General and the Particular in Memory: A Critique of Dale Allison’s Approach to the Historical Jesus’, JSHJ 14 (2016): 28–51). 26. Eric Eve, Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition (London: SPCK, 2013), 87–88; Pascal Boyer, ‘What Are Memories For? Functions of Recall in Cognition and Culture’, in Memory in Mind and Culture, ed. Pascal Boyer and James V. Wertsch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 4. 27. French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs is generally regarded as the father of social memory theory (The Collective Memory, trans. F.J. Ditter and V.Y. Ditter (New York: Harper & Row, 1980)). For good introductions of applying social memory theory to biblical studies, see Alan Kirk and Tom Thatcher, eds., Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity, Semeia Studies Series 52 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005); Loren T.  Stuckenbruck, Stephen C. Barton and Benjamin G. Wold, eds., Memory and Remembrance in the Bible and Antiquity, WUNT 212 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007); Anthony Le Donne, The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), esp. chs. 3–4; Tom Thatcher, ed., Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: A Conversation with Barry Schwarz,

Mimetic Empowerment

181

While social memory is of interest to scholars who are involved in historical Jesus research and tradition criticism,28 my interest is in personal event memory and how mimesis draws on memory of the original experience.29 In other words, I am keen to explore how performing a mimetic act can trigger or activate the believer’s episodic memory of the original event. Contemporary studies have shown that individual memory is not a ‘filing cabinet of stored photographic images of the past’ but more a ‘selective reconstruction of the past’.30 Just as the perception of an event, and hence the creation of a memory, is selective and interpretative, so is the retrieval process.31 In addition, individual memory can prove to be simultaneously reliable and fallible (people can forget, distort or reinterpret past events), and there often is an interpretative element in

Semeia Studies Series 78 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014); Chris Keith, ‘Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade’, 2 parts, EC 6 (2015): 354–76, 517–42; idem, ‘The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research’, JSNT 38 (2016): 426–55. 28. For example, Jens Schröter, James Dunn, Alan Kirk, Tom Thatcher, Rafael Rodriquez, Chris Keith and Eric Eve. For a more exhaustive list, see Chris Keith, ‘Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened’, ZNW 102 (2011): 166–67 n. 46. It must be noted, however, that there is much debate on the value of this ‘social memory approach’ to New Testament studies. It varies from rejection and scepticism (Francis Watson, ‘Social Memory and Writing in the Early Jesus Tradition’ (paper presented at the 70th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Amsterdam, 29 July 2015); Paul Foster, ‘Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research’, JSHJ 10 (2012): 191–227; Zeba A. Crook, ‘Collective Memory Distortion and the Quest for the Historical Jesus’, JSHJ 11 (2013): 53–76), to peripheral usage (Dunn, Bauckham), and those embracing it (Schröter, Kirk, Thatcher, Rodriquez, Keith). For an assessment of some of these scholars and their approaches, see Robert K. McIver, Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels, RBS 59 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), chs. 6–7; Eve, Behind the Gospels, chs. 7–8; Alan Kirk, ‘The Memory-Tradition Nexus in the Synoptic Tradition: Memory, Media, and Symbolic Representation’, in Thatcher, Memory and Identity (see n. 27), 131–59; Keith, ‘Social Memory Theory’, 519–41. For a broader perspective on how social memory can aid the study of religion, see Tuula Sakaranah, ‘Religion and the Study of Social Memory’, Temenos 47 (2011): 135–58. 29. Nevertheless, individual memory can become part of social memory (cf. the use of the first person plural ‘we’ and ‘us’ in 1 John). In the literature, ‘personal (event) memory’ also features as ‘episodic memory’, ‘autobiographical memory’ or ‘recollective memory’ (William F. Brewer, ‘What Is Recollective Memory?’, in Rubin, Remembering Our Past, 20–21, 32). 30. Eve, Behind the Gospels, 88. 31. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 326; Alan Kirk, ‘Memory Theory: Cultural and Cognitive Approaches to the Gospel Tradition’, in Neufeld and DeMaris, Understanding the Social World, 58.

182

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

the act of remembering to suit the present situation.32 According to reconstructive theories of memory, recollective memories contain both stable and variable elements. A memory is not encoded, stored or retrieved as a single unit in and from one location in the brain but as various components in different areas of the brain in collaboration with so-called ‘schemata’ – patterns that enable the mind to organize data in a usable way. Since these schemata may change over time, the organizing principles used by the mind may cause variation in the recall or reconstruction of a memory, and the purpose for which the memory is recalled may also strongly affect the reconstruction of the memory.33 I draw attention to Robert McIver’s comprehensive study of psychology and human memory in relation to the Synoptic Gospels. While he is primarily interested in the reliability of personal and collective memory underlying the Jesus traditions, I will draw on his findings about personal event memory.34 McIver first looks at the transience of human memory and shows that ‘episodic memory that survives for the first five years after an event is likely to be very stable for the next twenty years or more’.35 However, some kinds of episodic memories are less susceptible to or even exempt from the frailty of transience, usually memories that include vivid recollection of sensory images. These emotional and sensory personal event memories are ‘long-lived and have the ability to retain many details with great accuracy’.36 McIver draws on the work of David Pillemer, who proposed that an event is a personal event memory if it (i) is the memory of a specific event; (ii) contains a detailed account of the personal circumstances; (iii) is associated with sensory images that contribute to the feeling of re-experiencing it; (iv) relates to a particular moment of phenomenal experience; and (v) is believed to be a truthful representation of what happened.37 For Pillemer, memories of personal trauma, flashbulb memories, memories of critical incidents and moments of insight are all

32. Eve, Behind the Gospels, 89–90. See also McIver, Memory, ch. 4. 33. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 326–27; David B. Pillemer, Momentous Events, Vivid Memories (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 55–59; David C. Rubin, ‘Introduction’, in idem, Remembering Our Past, 4; Martin A. Conway, ‘Autobiographical Knowledge and Autobiographical Memories’, in Rubin, Remembering Our Past, 67–93; McIver, Memory, 76–80. 34. McIver, Memory. Keith stresses that social memory theory cannot be used to show that the Gospels are historically reliable or unreliable (‘Social Memory Theory’, 537–38.) In keeping with Keith’s assertion, I merely use memory theory to explore the connection between episodic memory and mimesis. 35. McIver, Memory, 40. 36. Ibid., 58. 37. Pillemer, Momentous Events, 50–51, cited in McIver, Memory, 50, 146. Cf. Rubin, ‘Introduction’, 1–2. See also the list of nine factors that contribute to the formation of personal event memories in Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 331–35 (Bauckham relies heavily on the study of William Brewer (see n. 29 for details)).

Mimetic Empowerment

183

varieties of personal event memories.38 Such memories, McIver asserts, ‘all involve something so significant to the individual concerned that they leave a strong emotional and sensory memory’.39 He goes on to say that ‘many of the events described in the Gospels are of such a nature that they would have had a significant emotional and sensory impact on participants and eyewitnesses’ and claims that such dramatic events would have resulted in special kinds of memories – personal event memories – that were immune to being transient.40 Indeed, it is easy to see that many of the events recorded in John’s Gospel are emotionally and sensory-charged incidents that would have forged personal event memories in the minds of the disciples. More importantly, some of these memories constitute the basis for mimesis because they are memories of the original events that are to be imitated by the disciples. Let me elaborate. First, regarding the footwashing, it is clear from Peter’s exchange with Jesus in 13:6-11 that he was completely taken aback by Jesus’ actions, and that this event would have created a personal event memory in his mind (and in that of the other disciples).41 In fact, Jesus’ demonstration of what needs imitation would have ensured the accuracy of the disciples’ recollection of the event because it would have been accompanied by a vivid mental picture of the event.42 Second, when Jesus commands his disciples to love one another, his mimetic imperative arises from his own love for the disciples. We learn in 13:1 that the footwashing episode is a demonstration of Jesus’ love for his disciples, so there is at least one tangible experience etched in the disciples’ minds. Jesus then provides the disciples with another example of his love for them when he states that laying down his life for them is a sign of true

38. Pillemer, Momentous Events, 30–49, cited in McIver, Memory, 50. 39. McIver, Memory, 50. See also Sven-Åke Christianson and Martin A. Safer, ‘Emotional Events and Emotions in Autobiographical Memories’, in Rubin, Remembering Our Past, 218–43. They affirm that people are more likely to have an accurate recall of emotional events than neutral or ordinary events; highly emotional events (e.g. flashbulb memories) are also well remembered. 40. McIver, Memory, 41. See also Bauckham’s observations based on his list of nine factors that contribute to the eyewitness memories behind the Gospels (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 341–46). 41. The footwashing episode qualifies on all Pillemer’s criteria mentioned above: (i) it represents an event that took place at a particular time and place; (ii) it contains a detailed account of the Beloved Disciple’s own personal circumstances at the time of the footwashing; (iii) the account of the event is accompanied by sensory images (e.g. the vivid description of Jesus’ actions in 13:4-5, 12) and emotions (e.g. the event expresses Jesus’ love (13:1) and Peter’s reactions in 13:6-9 are emotional); (iv) the event is of short duration but has a remarkable impact; (v) since the Beloved Disciple’s larger eyewitness account is considered trustworthy (19:35; 21:24), this memory can also be viewed as a truthful representation of what happened. 42. See also Brewer, who affirms that a visual image increases confidence in the accuracy of the remembered event (‘Recollective Memory’, 35–36, 39, 43).

184

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

love and friendship (15:13) – a demonstration that unfolds dramatically before their eyes when Jesus is arrested, tried and crucified. John’s experience of Jesus’ sacrificial love, recollected in 1 John 3:16, shows that this momentous event had become a personal memory. Thus, the experiences of Jesus’ love formed personal event memories in the disciples’ minds, which were probably triggered (in part or in whole) when they performed a mimetic act of love for others. Third, after Jesus and his disciples had their final meal together and made their way across the Kidron valley (14:31; 18:1), they may very well have walked through or passed a vineyard.43 If so, Jesus’ teaching on the need for his disciples to ‘imitate’ branches of the vine would have created a vivid memory in their minds. Fourth, ‘moments of insights’, which are personal event memories according to Pillemer, are precisely those where the disciples experience instances of post-resurrection remembrance (2:17, 22; 12:16). Fifth, the realization that Jesus was a divine agent sent by God must have formed a personal memory in the minds of, for example, Thomas (20:28) and John (1:1-18). Hence, whenever the disciples remember that they are sent into the world, they probably remember that Jesus was sent too. Sixth, Jesus’ announcement to his disciples in 13:33 that he will not be around much longer is clearly a traumatic event for the disciples (cf. 13:36; 14:1, 5, 8; 16:6, 20, 22), and would have created personal event memories. If we then consider that the farewell discourses contain fifteen out of twenty-six instances of the disciple–Jesus/God mimesis (i.e. almost 60%; see Section 2.3), these instances are perhaps all linked to personal event memories. This is significant for our study because these personal event memories were highly stable, non-transient memories, which were easily triggered or activated when a person performed the mimetic act. In other words, such stable memories function as mimetic empowerment.44 Bauckham draws attention to the fact that ‘we are already structuring events, selecting and ordering, seeking coherence and meaning, when we experience and

43. Although the terse phrase ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν ἐντεῦθεν in 14:31 finds its natural sequel in 18:1, this does not automatically mean that John 15–17 is a later interpolation. I suggest that Jesus and his disciples indeed did get up and leave the house but that Jesus taught the material we find in John 15–17 along the way. 44. In some instances, emotions are involved in the mimetic process. For example, Jesus’ love for his disciples prompts his act of washing their feet (13:1), and while love is shown in action in John, it also has an emotional aspect (see also Stephen Voorwinde, Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine?, LNTS 284 (London: T&T Clark, 2005), 72–73, 208–10). In 1 John 3:17, the phrase ‘to shut his heart/bowels to him [a needy person]’ (κλείειντὰ σπλάγχνα αὐτοῦ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ) refers to the lack of compassion (τὰ σπλάγχνα can refer to the seat of the emotions or to the emotion itself; BDAG, s.v.); conversely, by implication an ‘open heart’ will generate a mimetic act of love. We also noted that carrying out the mimetic act of washing one another’s feet will lead to joy (13:17; see Section 4.2.1), and Jesus’ promise of joy in 15:11 is sandwiched between two instances of mimesis (15:10 and 15:12).

Mimetic Empowerment

185

perceive the events, but even more so when we recall and recount them’. He goes on to explain the relationship between episodic memory and story schemata: In perception and recall we are constantly narrativizing experience – by selection, connection, and explanation of items – and must employ such narrative structures as are available to us as established schemata in our memories. This is the only way to make sense of events in the way that stories do. . . . Mostly we remember in order to tell other people. Often the telling to other people is the remembering.45

In short, remembering is a communicative act in which we recall and narrate the memory of a past event (either to ourselves or others). Similarly, psychologist David Pillemer asserts: The usual communicative form for sharing personal event memories is the narrative: people talk and write about them. But the phenomenal experience at the time of a momentous occurrence is not primarily verbal; things are seen, heard, and felt. Telling the story of what happened requires that the primarily nonverbal, imagistic input be translated into a coherent, story-like, verbal memory narrative.46

We find this mechanism in the Johannine writings. The mimetic imperative to serve one another in 13:15, for example, is embedded in narrative form, recorded in 13:1-20, and this established narrative aids the stability of the memory. Hence, when believers perform a mimetic act to actualize the imperative of 13:15, it may bring to mind the entire footwashing episode. Nowhere in the Johannine writings do we find the mimetic imperatives and statements as isolated sayings; they are always part of a narrative script. The narrative substructure aids the stability of the memory and assists the recall of the event. While we may remember events in order to tell other people, when it comes to mimesis we remember in order to tell ourselves the story of the original event and by so doing inform, motivate and empower ourselves for the mimetic act. For John, mimesis is a creative, cognitive and mnemonic act that involves the recall of the original act as well as the construction of a mimetic act that encapsulates and communicates the dynamic equivalence of the past event for the present. It appears, then, that personal event memory or episodic memory involves both the interpretation and reconstruction of stored events from the past. This seems to cohere with our findings on Johannine mimesis as a creative, cognitive process where the imitator must interpret the original act and communicate its meaning

45. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 336–37 (previous quotation from p. 335). 46. Pillemer, Momentous Events, 52–53 (original emphasis). Cf. Rubin, who asserts that ‘the verbal structure of an autobiographical memory is the structure of the genre of narrative’ (‘Introduction’, 2).

186

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

in a mimetic act that while not necessarily identical to the original act nevertheless corresponds to it. When the believer performs or considers performing a mimetic act, it will probably evoke the memory of Jesus first doing the same for the believer.47 This activation of the believer’s personal event memory, recalling the original experience, should empower (i.e. inspire and energize) the believer to perform the mimetic act to and for others. Thus, John can say that believers are only able to love one another because they have first experienced God’s love for themselves (1 John 4:10-11, 19). This personal experience of God’s love, stored in the believer’s episodic memory is probably activated when a mimetic act of love is called for, and is what also empowers the believer to love others. Mimesis is thus linked to personal event memory in that the episodic memory is activated as one performs the mimetic act. If I were asked whether I serve someone because I remember Jesus’ imperative in 13:15 or because I remember that Jesus has served me, my answer would be, ‘both’. Since the imperative of 13:15 is embedded in the narrative of Jesus’ washing the disciples’ feet, it is likely that I recall the entire narrative, which in turn will evoke personal memories of when Jesus has served me. So, as I serve, I remember and re-create the experience of Jesus’ serving me and this motivates and empowers me to continue serving.

6.3 The Spirit as Empowerment In the previous sections, I suggested that the believer’s relationship with Jesus/God and the act of remembrance are potential sources of empowerment for mimesis. In this section, I will show that the Spirit has a role in both and thus is an empowering source for mimesis, albeit indirectly. I will start, however, with showing that the Johannine literature presents the Spirit as a moral agent.48 6.3.1 The Spirit as a Moral Agent The first clue that the Spirit is a source of empowerment for mimesis is found in the idea of the Spirit as a moral force that shapes both the believer’s identity and behaviour. Most scholars agree that people’s entry into the divine family through the birth of water and Spirit in John 3:5 should be interpreted against the background of Ezekiel 36–37.49 YHWH promises, in Ezekiel 36:25-26, that he will restore and transform Israel by cleansing her from moral impurity and

47. See also Brewer, who notes that personal event memory is ‘memory for a specific episode from an individual’s past’ and ‘typically appears to be a “reliving” of the individual’s phenomenal experience during that earlier moment’ (‘Recollective Memory’, 60). 48. While I presented the Spirit as a cognitive agent for salvation in Power of Saving Wisdom, I now focus on the Spirit as a moral agent for ethics. We will see that the cognitive and moral functions of the Spirit are compatible. 49. See the discussion in Bennema, Power of Saving Wisdom, 169–72.

Mimetic Empowerment

187

giving her a new ‘heart’ or ‘spirit’. The new ‘heart’ and ‘spirit’ are metaphors for the corporate transformation of Israel’s very core. In addition, YHWH promises to put his Spirit in Israel’s ‘inner being’ so that she can relate correctly to him, that is, the Spirit will be the force that directs Israel to live as YHWH’s renewed covenant people (36:27). I view the phrase ἐν ὑμῖν (‘in you’ or ‘among you’ (plural)) in 36:27 LXX primarily in relational terms, that is, YHWH will place his Spirit in the midst of Israel – at the centre of Israel’s life or existence. If we read Ezekiel 37:1-14 in the context of Ezekiel 36:25-27, it becomes clear that the entire process of restoration and transformation is effected and sustained by YHWH’s Spirit.50 Thus, YHWH will transform Israel by means of his Spirit and this ‘indwelling’ Spirit will be the primary force enabling a renewed Israel to keep her covenant obligations. Against this backdrop, the Johannine birth of water and Spirit is a metaphor for appropriating salvation through the cleansing and renewing work of the Holy Spirit. Besides being the agent of the new birth, the Spirit will also be the one to sustain this salvation. The Spirit will ‘indwell’ the renewed person and be the primary moral force directing the person to embody the values of the kingdom of God. This resultant spiritual transformation, from the core of one’s being, is what is meant by the phrase ‘what is born of the Spirit is Spirit’ in John 3:6b. The Spirit is thus depicted in John as a moral force, empowering believers to behave appropriately within the divine family. The idea of the Spirit as a moral agent is present elsewhere in the Johannine writings. First, the Spirit does not only enable people to enter into a relationship with the Father and Son, but also sustains this relationship by continuing to facilitate understanding of the divine reality (cf. ὁδηγεῖν ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ in 16:13). Based on this Spirit-informed truth, believers can know God’s will, character, commandments and mission, which is vital for discipleship (see also Section 5.2). For example, the Spirit interprets Jesus’ teaching by mediating its truth about the divine reality to the believer (14:26; 16:13-15; cf. 1 John 2:27). This will naturally influence the believers’ identity and behaviour in terms of their thinking, attitude, motivation and actions. In guiding believers into all truth, the Spirit informs them about the family values, thus shaping family behaviour. Hence, the Spirit has a crucial role to play in the moral transformation of believers in that a Spiritinformed epistemology informs and directs the believers’ moral life. Second, the Spirit facilitates a new worship of God as Father (4:23-24). This worship-in-truth effects ethical transformation because ‘truth’ is an ethical category. Worship also affirms identity in that worshippers expresses their dependence on God, and their submission and loyalty to him. The Spirit thus shapes the believers’ identity and behaviour. In sum, the Spirit is depicted in the Johannine literature as a moral agent who will effect a change in the believer’s inner most being, in that the new

50. Although the Hebrew ‫ רו ּ ַח‬can mean ‘wind’, ‘breath’, or ‘spirit’, all occurrences of the term in Ezek 37:1-14 (with the exception of the phrase ‘Come from the four winds’) refer, arguably, to the divine Spirit.

188

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

birth by the Spirit creates a new identity. The Spirit will also be the inner force that directs and enables the believer to live according to the divine family code (facilitating appropriate behaviour). In other words, the Spirit is the moral force of the community of faith, shaping its moral vision and directing its actions. Although there is no direct link between this and mimetic behaviour, if the Spirit informs and directs the moral life of believers and if moral transformation occurs primarily through mimesis (see Chapter 5), the logical inference is that the Spirit empowers the believer’s mimesis. Nevertheless, we must find other evidence to support this idea.51 6.3.2 The Spirit as a Relational Agent In Section 6.1, I argued that the Son–Father mimesis is rooted in their intimate relationship, where the Father shows everything to the Son, which in turn enables the Son to imitate the Father. We can strengthen our case if we consider that the Spirit empowers Jesus for carrying out the Father’s work. In John 1:32, John the Baptist testifies to the Spirit’s coming and remaining upon Jesus. This verse, very likely, alludes to Isaiah 11:2 to show that John understood that the Spirit was meant to empower Jesus for his ministry.52 Jesus’ ministry consists primarily of speaking God’s words, which he can do precisely because he is given the Spirit (3:34). John 3:35 explains that the Father loves the Son and has placed πάντα, that is, the entire Spirit-informed revelation, in his hands. This refers to 5:19-20, where Jesus explains that he can only imitate the Father because the Father loves the Son and shows him πάντα he is doing. It would then not be too wide of the mark to suggest that the Spirit also empowers Jesus’ mimesis of the Father (see also Section 3.1.4). And if the same Spirit that empowered Jesus is given to believers to continue his work on earth, the idea of the Spirit as a mimetic empowerment may also extend to believers as they seek to imitate Jesus. A second piece of corroboration for the idea that the Spirit empowers believers to imitate Jesus lies in what we learn of the Spirit as the means of mediating the relationship between Jesus (and the Father) and the believer. I suggest that John 14:15-24 indicates that the Father and Son relate to and indwell the believer by means of the Spirit. In 14:23 we learn that Jesus and the Father come to the believer and make a dwelling place with him; this parallels the believer being indwelled by the Paraclete (14:17), and Jesus’ coming to his disciples (in the Spirit) (14:18).53

51. While van der Merwe explains that the Spirit is a source of transformation, he does not show how the Spirit enables mimesis (‘Imitatio Christi’, 143–47). 52. The use of μένειν in 1:32 instead of ἀναπαῦσαι (Isa 11:2 LXX) can be readily explained by John’s preference for this term. 53. There is disagreement about whether Jesus’ ‘coming’ in 14:18 refers to his postresurrection appearances, the Parousia or his return in the coming of the Spirit-Paraclete. The problem with a reference to Jesus’ resurrection appearances is that the disciples would be orphans again after Jesus’ ascension. If 14:18 refers to the Parousia, the disciples

Mimetic Empowerment

189

Thus, the indwelling of the believer by the Father and Son is mediated to and experienced by the believer through the indwelling Spirit. This idea seems to be confirmed in 1 John, which explains that the believer’s κοινωνία is with the Father and Son, and that they remain in the believer by means of the Spirit (1 John 1:3; 2:27; 3:24; 4:13). In sum, when the Spirit draws people into God’s family, the Spirit mediates the presence of the Father and Son to them, so that the Father and Son indwell them. This Spirit-facilitated divine–human relationship has a profound transformative effect on the believers’ identity and behaviour in the divine family (see also Section 5.2). By implication, if the believers’ relationship with Jesus empowers for mimesis (see Section 6.1), and if the Spirit is instrumental to or the means of this relationship, then the Spirit effectively empowers for mimesis. Let us examine an example of the Spirit’s empowering with regard to the mimetic love command. In 14:21, 23, Jesus links love between him, the Father and the believer with an indwelling relationship between them. Then, in 1 John 3:23-24; 4:12-13, the love command is connected with Jesus/God abiding in believers, and believers are aware of this abiding relationship because they have received the Spirit. The Father and Son and their shared love thus indwell the believer by means of the Spirit. In other words, the Spirit mediates the presence of the Father and Son and their shared love to the believer. Hence, the Spirit is the bond of love and as such can also be expected to empower believers to actualize the love command.54 6.3.3 The Spirit as a Mnemonic Agent The final clue that the Spirit empowers for mimesis lies in the Spirit’s role as a teacher. In Section 3.2, we noted that the didactic function of the Spirit consists of two activities: he will teach the disciples πάντα and remind them of πάντα, where πάντα is qualified by the sub-clause ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν [ἐγώ] and thus refers to all of Jesus’ historical teaching (14:26; cf. 16:13-15). Although the Spirit does not provide new teaching independent of Jesus’ historical teaching, the Spirit does more than just literally reiterate Jesus’ words. More likely, the Spirit aims to explain the meaning and significance of Jesus’ historical teaching for any situation and time. In other words, the Spirit will reinterpret Jesus’ original words for any new context.

would continue to be orphans until that event. In my view, the only viable interpretation is a reference to Jesus’ coming back to the disciples in and through the Spirit-Paraclete. In which case, the gift of the Spirit-Paraclete in 14:16, Jesus’ coming back in 14:18, Jesus’ revealing himself to believers in 14:21, and Jesus and the Father indwelling believers in 14:23 all indicate the same reality, namely that believers know and experience the Father and Son through the indwelling Spirit. 54. Elsewhere, I suggested that the Spirit facilitates the divine–human relationship and is the bond of friendship between Jesus and the believer (Power of Saving Wisdom, 221–25). In Rabens’s model of relational empowering (see Section 6.1), the Spirit also plays a central role (‘Johannine Perspectives’, 120, 127–28).

190

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

This function of the Spirit may also relate to mimesis. We have seen that mimesis involves an interpretation of the original act and the articulation in a corresponding act. We also noted that this mimetic act need not be an exact replication of the original act but can be a creative, faithful expression of it. In other words, authentic mimesis requires ‘recontextualization’, that is, the translation of the meaning of the original act to a mimetic act in a new context may entail a different form or expression from the original. In the case of the footwashing, for example, the intention of Jesus’ mimetic imperative was that his followers should provide humble, loving service to one another (the underlying idea and attitude), and while this could be achieved by a literal washing of feet, an exact replication of the original act does not exhaust the range of mimetic acts that can communicate the intended mimesis. The mimetic act can be a creative, recontextualized articulation that faithfully conveys the meaning, intent and attitude underlying the original act. In other words, there must remain a close correspondence between the creative articulation and the original example in order to qualify as mimesis – it must be within the conceptual mimetic domain of the original act, in both form and content.55 I would argue that the Spirit as a teacher plays a role in this mimetic process. First, as the Spirit explains Jesus’ historical teaching to believers, it would include teaching that Jesus’ actions need imitation, along with clarification of the underlying idea, attitude or motivation behind these actions. Second, if the Spirit’s teaching has an element of recontextualization, the Spirit may also aid the believer in determining an appropriate mimetic act, thus implicitly enabling mimesis. As a teacher, the Spirit aids the believers’ cognition in terms of understanding Jesus’ actions and identifying an appropriate mimetic act, and also enables the believer in performing the mimesis. The second aspect of the Spirit’s teaching function – anamnesis – strengthens the claim that the Spirit empowers for mimesis. First, we saw that the Spirit reminds believers of Jesus’ historical teaching, including Jesus’ actions and mimetic imperatives. Then, in Section 6.2, we suggested that mimesis evokes the believer’s memory of what has been observed and experienced in Jesus’ original actions. We now go further and claim that the Spirit evokes the believer’s memory of the original experience (cf. 14:26). The Spirit’s anamnesis thus enables believers to re-experience Jesus’ original act, which motivates and empowers them to imitate Jesus. We now bring these two aspects together. Jesus’ original act (in the past) needs to be interpreted and contextualized in the mimetic act (in the present) to constitute authentic mimesis. Spirit-enabled memory (that is the Spirit’s aid in reconstructing the original act) is what empowers for mimesis. As a mnemonic agent, the Spirit enables the recollection (and hence reconstruction) of past events, something that occurs when a person considers or performs a mimetic act. The Spirit aids in interpreting the event of the past, in reconstructing the event in the process of remembering, and in formulating a corresponding mimetic act in the present. For the believer, the purpose of remembering (recalling memories of past events) is

55. See also Chapter 4, n. 72.

Mimetic Empowerment

191

to imitate and represent Jesus in the present situation, to re-enact Jesus’ original action for others in the present. At the end of Section 6.2, I gave an example of what might happen when I seek to imitate Jesus’ example of servanthood. I suggested that as I consider performing an act of service, I remember and re-create the experience of Jesus’ serving me and this motivates and empowers me to serve others. I will now add that the Spirit is active in this entire process. Using the same example, I would say that (i) the Spirit calls to mind the footwashing episode; (ii) the Spirit enables me to understand the meaning of Jesus’ mimetic imperative in 13:15 and the larger narrative in which the mimesis is embedded; (iii) the Spirit reminds me of other experiences where Jesus has served me; (iv) the Spirit enables me to determine and perform an appropriate mimetic act; (v) the Spirit mediates Jesus to the recipient.

6.4 Conclusion Recognizing that mimesis can be an arduous volitional act that could cost the imitator’s life naturally raised the issue of what or who empowers for such mimesis. I argued that the answer lies in the combination of a relationship with Jesus and the Spirit’s didactic functions. In their relationship with Jesus, believers continue to observe and re-experience Jesus’ example that motivates and empowers them to imitate him. In fact, in the process of mimesis, the believer’s memory of the original experience is awakened and this remembrance aids the believer to carry out the mimetic act. At the same time, in recalling Jesus’ original teaching and unveiling its meaning and significance, the Spirit provides understanding of the content that needs imitation and the form it might take or the actions this might lead to. In short, mimesis is rooted in and arises from a relationship with Jesus under the direction or guidance of the Spirit. As a moral, relational and mnemonic agent, the  Spirit informs and enables the believer’s mimesis. The purpose of mimesis and the Spirit’s role in the process have individual as well as corporate implications. The Spirit informs and enables the mimetic character and conduct of believers in order to strengthen the moral fabric of the community.

Chapter 7 Conclusion

In this final chapter, I will summarize the results of our study (Section 7.1). I will also situate John’s understanding of mimesis in the broader early Christian and Graeco-Roman intellectual milieu of his time (Section 7.2). This will only be a sketch since the subject could lend itself to a separate study. I will close the book by drawing implications (Section 7.3) and making recommendations for further research (Section 7.4).

7.1 Summary From our survey of scholarship in Chapter 1, we noted that mimesis has attracted little attention from Johannine scholarship. This is unsurprising because Johannine ethics, of which mimesis is a part, has only recently received a new impetus and scholars have only just begun to explore its many facets. In addition, mimesis is not immediately evident in the Johannine text because the literal terms for mimesis are missing (barring one exception in 3 John). The aim of the study was to establish that mimesis is a valid Johannine concept, to explain its particulars and to show that mimesis is integral to Johannine ethics. In order to achieve this aim, I formulated four research questions that were answered in subsequent chapters. I defined mimesis as ‘person B represents or emulates person A in activity or state X in order to become like person A’. In Chapter 2, we addressed the question, ‘What language does John use to convey the concept of mimesis?’ We found that the Johannine mimetic language consists of eight different linguistic constructions accounting for about forty-four occurrences of mimesis (see also Appendix 1). Acknowledging that not every occurrence indicates mimesis ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, I developed the heuristic device of ‘mimetic strength’ to situate each occurrence on a mimetic spectrum with a sliding scale ‘strong’, ‘medium’ and ‘weak’ to express our certainty of the presence of mimesis in each passage. We noted that the Johannine literature presents two types of mimesis – performative mimesis and existential mimesis – and that the two prominent categories are the Son–Father mimesis and the believer–Jesus/God mimesis. Regarding the believer–Jesus/God mimesis, the believer’s mimesis of Jesus is most prevalent, while the believer’s mimesis of God, or both Jesus and God,

194

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

is less so (see Chapter 2, n. 52). Noting that many occurrences of the believer–Jesus/ God mimesis are imperatives, we inferred that mimesis is not optional but a critical aspect of the believer’s relationship with Jesus/God. The overall conclusion was that the concept of Johannine mimesis is both varied in terms of the different mimetic expressions, and widespread in terms of where mimesis occurs in the Johannine literature. This provided us with a legitimate case to explore the concept further. The answer to the question, ‘What is the scope, nature and workings of mimesis in the Johannine literature?,’ dominated Chapters 3–4, the major part of our study. In Chapter 3, we noted that John’s depiction of the divine family presents a dominant Son–Father mimesis and a latent Spirit–Son mimesis in the Godhead. This divine mimesis, rather than being a literal replication, is a creative, faithful representation of God’s words and works on earth. We learnt that divine mimesis is instrumental to the God–human relationship because certain fundamental attributes and activities that characterize the Father–Son relationship are extended to people by means of mimesis. In other words, the Son–Father mimesis (and Spirit–Jesus mimesis) occurs for the sake of people, implying that mimesis is a vital mechanism for mediating the divine reality of the heavenly realm to the earthly one. In Chapter 4, we unpacked the prevalent believer–Jesus mimesis and occasional believer–God mimesis, demonstrating that John presents mimesis as a cognitive and creative process that is concerned with both the interpretation of the original act and the formulation of a corresponding mimetic act. I argued that for John mimesis is primarily the creative, faithful, tangible articulation of the idea and attitude that lies behind the original act rather than its literal replication (cloning). While performative mimesis is the most prevalent form of the believer–Jesus/God mimesis, existential mimesis is remarkably frequent, indicating that the believer’s mimesis of Jesus or God is not simply related to behaviour but also involves the shaping of identity. We also learnt that the believer–Jesus/God mimesis does not only benefit the believer but also others because some forms of mimesis, such as to serve one another, to love one another and to be sent into the world, mediate Jesus/God to the beneficiary of the mimetic act. We noted a similar dynamic in the Son–Father mimesis and the believer–Jesus mimesis, so much so that we could speak of a mimetic chain where Jesus imitates God, (the Spirit imitates Jesus,) and the believer imitates Jesus, in which (I explained more fully in Chapter 5) divine moral goods such as life, live, light, truth and honour are passed down the chain. In Chapter 5, we answered the question, ‘What place does mimesis occupy in Johannine ethics?’ I argued that mimesis is integral to Johannine ethics based on three observations. First, the Johannine literature contains a moral narrative that allows for ethical reflection. Second, ‘family’ is a major theological category for John and provides a natural context for his ethics because believers are brought into God’s family. Third, John’s mimetic ethics is primarily family ethics in that mimesis is the primary means for constructing and shaping the believer’s identity and behaviour within the divine family. Connecting these observations, we concluded that mimesis is central to Johannine ethics and instrumental in people’s moral transformation. To put it differently, mimesis is the primary ethical instrument

Conclusion

195

for directing appropriate character and conduct in the divine family. As such, the aim of mimesis is to shape the believer’s identity and behaviour towards the ethos (i.e. beliefs, values and norms) of God’s family that is embedded in the Johannine narrative. The question, ‘What or who empowers for mimesis?,’ was the focus of Chapter 6. Having learnt that mimesis is a crucial aspect of the believer’s relationship with Jesus/God and at times demands great sacrifice, it would be natural to explore whether John indicates how such mimesis can be carried out. I suggested that the clue to mimetic empowerment lies in a combination of the believer’s relationship with Jesus (where they can ‘observe’ and re-experience Jesus’ example) and the Spirit’s didactic functions (providing understanding of the original act and aiding the articulation of the mimetic act). We also learnt that mimesis stimulates the imitator’s memory of the original act and this recall could motivate and empower the imitator to perform the mimetic act. For John, then, mimesis is a creative, cognitive and mnemonic act that involves the recall of the original act as well as the construction of a mimetic act that encapsulates and communicates the dynamic equivalence of the past event for the present. In short, a relationship with Jesus in which the Spirit is operative as a moral, relational and mnemonic agent is what informs and enables the believer’s mimesis. Since believers are embedded in a larger group and mimesis often occurs for the sake of others, Spirit-enabled mimesis also shapes the moral life of the community of faith.

7.2 The Place of Johannine Mimesis in Antiquity Our last task is to situate the Johannine concept of mimesis in the broader intellectual and cultural environment of early Christianity, Second Temple Judaism and Graeco-Roman antiquity. With the intention of conducting a separate study on the subject of mimesis in early Christianity and its place in the larger Jewish and Graeco-Roman world, I offer a tentative sketch here of the direction this project might take. Situating John in Graeco-Roman Antiquity. Having outlined the concept of mimesis in antiquity in Sections 1.3 and 2.1, we are now able to show that Johannine mimesis has significant points of contact with the concept in Plato and Aristotle. As Gebauer and Wulf explain, there is no unified concept of mimesis in Plato. Prior to his Republic, Plato could refer to mimesis, inter alia, as (i) the imitation of a concrete action, where a motive could often be identified for the mimetic action, and (ii) the emulation of a person or object worthy of imitation, which involves an ethical point of view.1 In the third book of the Republic, Plato examines the relation between mimesis and education, stressing that poetry is an important source of a youth’s experience with examples and models. In order to realize the potential contribution of poetry to the youth’s education, mimesis is brought into

1. Gebauer and Wulf, Mimesis, 32–33.

196

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

play as the imitation of role models, with the aim of the youth becoming like the models.2 Hence, mimesis has a transformative capacity: ‘Implied in the mimesis of specific behaviour is a change on the part of the imitator; the intention is to emulate the model and appropriate its abilities.’3 Influenced by Plato’s concept of mimesis, Aristotle transforms mimesis into a technical concept restricted to the area of poetry, music and visual arts. For Aristotle, however, mimesis (in poetry and art) is not merely imitation but also has creative and rational aspects.4 Our findings of Johannine mimesis as a creative, cognitive process coheres with mimesis in Greek antiquity. De Boer explains that, etymologically, μιμεῖσθαι refers to the creative and orderly expression of the harmony, rhythm, potentiality and forces of nature through the fine arts (painting, dance, sculpture, poetry), and the essence of imitation was ‘not so much in terms of sameness, complete likeness, exact reproduction, but rather in terms of bringing to expression, representation, portrayal’. De Boer goes on to suggest that ‘the process of imitation need not be a dull uncreative repetition of something or someone else. Imitation may also include the creative activity of bringing things, ideas, and persons to expression.’5 Similarly, Stefaniw notes that for Plato, mimesis was a cognitive process: ‘Since Plato is so confident that there is no gap between knowing what is right and doing what is right, pedagogy and epistemology take on key ethical roles. Given his belief that better imitation results from better knowledge, competent mimesis naturally requires good pedagogy.’6 However, it is primarily Aristotle who developed the creative and cognitive aspects of mimesis.7 Hence, for both Aristotle and John, mimesis has creative and cognitive aspects and cannot be reduced to mere replication. Roman poets and rhetoricians, such as Horace, Dionysius, Quintilian,

2. Ibid., 33–34. 3. Ibid., 36. Plato, however, is also deeply suspicious of poetry because (i) it can contain negative representations of gods and heroes (which, if imitated, will have a detrimental effect on the youth’s education), and (ii) it is excessive in that it contains more than is needed for someone to fulfil their assigned tasks (Gebauer and Wulf, Mimesis, 33–35; see also Potolsky, Mimesis, 18–20). Then, in book ten of the Republic, Plato views mimesis as being opposed to reality (it only reflects or gives an appearance of reality) and reason (it does not involve genuine knowledge) (Potolsky, Mimesis, 22–25). For Plato, the broad context of mimesis is the political-ethical life of the Greek polis, and since poetry with its inherent promotion of mimesis had a detrimental effect on education and the public life, Plato wanted to censor poetry and even banish it from the republic (Potolsky, Mimesis, 27–29). Aristotle, however, did not share Plato’s scepticism. See also de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 5–6; Andrea Nightingale, ‘Mimesis: Ancient Greek Literary Theory’, in Literary Theory and Criticism, ed. Patricia Waugh (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 37–47. 4. Potolsky, Mimesis, 33–37. Nevertheless, Plato’s concept of mimesis is not entirely void of reason (Stefaniw, ‘Disciplined Mind’, 239). 5. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 1–8 (quotations from p. 2 and p. 8, respectively). 6. Stefaniw, ‘Disciplined Mind’, 239. 7. Potolsky, Mimesis, ch. 2.

Conclusion

197

Seneca and Longinus, continued the Greek notion of mimesis as a critical, creative practice of emulation and transformation rather than a mechanical copying. Good mimesis both resembled and differed from the original.8 Although mimesis resists a precise definition, it appears that underlying all forms of mimesis, both in Graeco-Roman antiquity and the New Testament, is the idea of corresponding representation.9 Regarding the most common Johannine form of mimesis – the believer–Jesus mimesis – the central idea is that in imitating Jesus, the believer represents Jesus in a truthful fashion. We also observed that the Johannine Jesus uses personal example and mimesis as important means to model and encourage appropriate behaviour among his followers. In fact, the widespread use of personal example in the surrounding Jewish and Graeco-Roman worlds made it a readily available model for Jesus.10 The significance of mimesis is that instruction accompanied by personal example is much more powerful than mere instruction. As first-century Roman rhetorician Quintilian puts it, We must not read or listen to orators merely for the sake of acquiring words. For in everything which we teach examples are more effective even than the rules which are taught in the schools, so long as the student has reached a stage when he can appreciate such examples without the assistance of a teacher, and can rely on his own powers to imitate them. And the reason is this, that the professor of rhetoric lays down rules, while the orator gives a practical demonstration. (Institutio Oratoria 10.1.15; LCL 124)

Situating John in Early Christianity. In positioning John’s concept of mimesis in his immediate ‘Christian’ environment, I will limit myself to the New Testament writings. Compared to the Johannine writings, mimesis is peripheral in the Synoptics. Like John’s Gospel, the Synoptic traditions have no explicit linguistic expression that ties ‘following Jesus’ to mimesis; instead, there are only conceptual traces of mimesis. Regarding other linguistic expressions that can denote mimesis, the Synoptics have far fewer instances of mimesis than John. A brief exploration of the Synoptic Gospels shows that mimesis related to believers is barely found in Mark (10:15, 43),11 and occurs sporadically in Matthew, mainly in the Sermon

8. Potolsky, Mimesis, 54–57. 9. See also Halliwell, Aesthetics of Mimesis, 16–18; Gebauer and Wulf, Mimesis, 27–29; de Boer, Imitation of Paul, 15. 10. See, for example, de Boer, Imitation of Paul, ch. 3; Fiore, Function of Personal Example, chs. 3–6; Dodd, Paul’s Paradigmatic ‘I’, ch. 1; Teresa Morgan, Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), ch. 5; Barbarick, ‘The Pattern and the Power’, ch. 2; Peter-Ben Smit, Paradigms of Being in Christ: A Study of the Epistle to the Philippians, LNTS 476 (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), ch. 1. 11. In Mark 10:15, Jesus tells his audience that to enter the kingdom of God, they must receive it like (ὡς) a small child, that is, they must imitate a child receiving a gift. In 10:43,

198

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

on the Mount (5:48; 6:2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 16; 10:24-25; 18:3-4; 20:25-28),12 and Luke (6:36; 17:10; 18:17; 22:25-27).13 In short, the Synoptics present a ‘weak’ concept of mimesis that is only peripheral to ethics. Most of the literal terms μιμεῖσθαι, μιμητής and συμμιμητής appear in the Pauline tradition – eight out of eleven occurrences (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Eph 5:1; Phil 3:17; 1 Thess 1:6; 2:14; 2 Thess 3:7, 9). Both Paul and John present Jesus to their audiences as the model for imitation and moral transformation, and in doing so present a specific mimetic ethic. In fact, John’s concept of Spirit-guided mimetic ethics (see Sections 6.3 and 7.3) sounds very similar to Paul’s understanding of a Spirit-led ethical life (e.g. Rom 8:1-17; Gal 5:16–6:10). There are, however, two main differences between them. First, they use different mimetic language. While Paul uses the language of the Graeco-Roman mimetic traditions, John develops his own terminology with a broad semantic domain, although he is aware of the Greek mimetic language (μιμεῖσθαι occurs in 3 John 11). Second, while John stresses the believer–Jesus mimesis, Paul introduces the concept of the believer–Paul mimesis. In other words, for John the personal example of Jesus is the sole basis for imitation, but for Paul it is also his own personal example (presumably because he considers himself a faithful imitator of Christ). While the idea of believers as exemplars for imitation is merely implied in John (see also Section 7.3), it is explicit in Paul.

οὕτως denotes mimesis in that Jesus tells his disciples not to imitate the Gentile authorities who lord it over people; instead they must become servants and seek to imitate Jesus’ servanthood (10:42-45). 12. In Matt 5:48, Jesus exhorts his audience to be perfect just as (ὡς) their heavenly Father is perfect, that is, they should imitate God, loving everyone impartially (5:43-48). In 6:1-18, there are various instances of mimesis regarding three ‘acts of righteousness’ (almsgiving, prayer, fasting). Negatively, ὥσπερ (6:2, 7), ὡς (6:5, 16) and ὁμοιόω (6:8) are used synonymously to indicate that Jesus’ followers should not imitate the hypocritical Jewish authorities or the Gentiles in their behaviour. Positively, in 6:9-13, Jesus offers a prayer that functions as an example to follow, whether literally or creatively (οὕτως in 6:9 indicates the mimesis). Beyond the Sermon on the Mount, there are few instances of mimesis: (i) in 10:24-25, Jesus states that followers are like (ὡς) their master and will also experience abuse; (ii) in 18:1-4, Jesus exhorts his disciples to imitate the humility or low status of a child; (iii) in 20:25-28, Jesus first tells his disciples not to imitate Gentile rulers (οὕτως is used), and then stresses the importance of servanthood and his own example for imitation (ὥσπερ is used). 13. In Luke 6:36, a disciple is urged to be merciful or compassionate just as (καθώς) God is (cf. Matt 5:48). The adverb οὕτως indicates believer mimesis twice: (i) 17:10 mentions that a disciple should imitate a slave in faithful service to his master; (ii) in 22:25-26a, Jesus urges his disciples not to imitate Gentile kings and so-called ‘benefactors’. The particle ὡς is used a few times to express mimesis: (i) in 18:17, Jesus urges his disciples to imitate the receptivity of children in order to enter the kingdom of God; (ii) in 22:26b-27, Jesus tells his disciples to imitate a servant and then presents himself as the servant to imitate.

Conclusion

199

As for the rest of the New Testament, only Hebrews and 1 Peter show a noticeable presence of mimesis.14 In Hebrews 6:12 and 13:7, the author uses the term μιμεῖσθαι to urge his audience to imitate those who have exemplified steadfast faith and patience. The term ὑπόδειγμα occurs three times in Hebrews to denote imitation: in 4:11, the author cautions his audience against imitating Israel’s past disobedience; in 8:5a and 9:23-24, the author explains that the earthly sanctuary was an inferior copy or imitation of the heavenly one. The mimetic idea in 8:5a is strengthened in 8:5b, which says that Moses was told ‘to make everything according to [i.e. to imitate] the τύπος (‘example’) shown to him on the mountain’. In 4:10, the comparative conjunction ὥσπερ denotes mimesis in that God’s people can experience God’s rest by ceasing from their work just as God ceased from his. Finally, in 10:25, the author warns his audience not to imitate those believers neglecting their meetings (the comparative conjunction καθώς is used). In short, five out of eight mimetic occurrences in Hebrews relate to ethics (4:10, 11; 6:12; 10:25; 13:7).15 1 Peter has a few instances of mimesis. The clearest case is 1 Peter 2:21, stating that Christ’s suffering is an example for believers to imitate (lit. ‘an example, so that you may follow in his footsteps’; ὑπογραμμόν, ἵνα ἐπακολουθήσητε τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ). In some cases, the comparative conjunction ὡς denotes mimesis (e.g. 1 Pet 1:14-15; 2:2, 4-5, 11, 25; cf. 2 Pet 1:19; 2:12). Finally, in 1 Peter 5:3, Peter urges elders to be examples (τύποι) to the flock, presumably so that believers can imitate their humility.16 In conclusion, John, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and Peter seem to be the main New Testament authors who employ the concept of mimesis in service of their ethics. Situating John in Second Temple Judaism. Discourse on mimesis originated in Greek philosophy. The Greek concept of mimesis refers to the (creative) representation (rather than cloning) of reality, and we saw that John’s concept of mimesis corresponds to this. But can we also situate Johannine mimesis in the ethical thought of Second Temple Judaism? We noted in Section 1.3 that the concept of mimesis is not prevalent in the Hebrew Scriptures but around the first century CE the Greek concept of mimesis seems to have found its way into some Jewish writings. According to de Boer, two factors could account for the introduction of mimesis into Second Temple Jewish thinking: (i) the process of Hellenization, which caused some Jewish writers to employ the concept of ‘imitating God’ that was prevalent in Greek literature; (ii) the formation of rabbinic schools where

14. In James, the ὥσπερ . . . οὕτως construction in 2:26 and the phrase οὕτως καί in 3:4-5 show analogy rather than mimesis, and in 5:10 the term ὑπόδειγμα simply means ‘example’. 15. There are arguably further instances of mimesis in Hebrews. Heb 2:17 mentions that Christ became like (ὁμοιῶσαι) a human being in every respect; 5:4-5 states that just as Aaron did not seek the high priesthood, so also (οὕτως καί) Christ did not; 7:15 presents Jesus as a priest resembling or emulating (κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα) Melchizedek. 16. 1 Pet 1:15-16 is probably not an instance of mimesis because it quotes Lev 19:2 and preserves the causal relation between God’s holiness and that of believers, that is, believers should be holy because (ὅτι) God is holy (see also Chapter 1, n. 113).

200

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

pupils imitated their teacher.17 In which case, John was very much a child of his time and creatively connected these two spheres of mimetic influence. First, the believer–Jesus mimesis corresponds to the Jewish pupil–rabbi and Greek pupil– teacher mimetic relationships. John’s Gospel presents an apprenticeship model where disciples live with Jesus, imbibing his teaching and observing his deeds, accompanied by Jesus’ instructions to imitate him. After Jesus’ departure from this world, the disciples (and later believers) continue to imitate Jesus because of (i) Jesus’ continued presence in the community of faith; (ii) ongoing Spiritguided teaching; and (iii) the example of fellow believers imitating Jesus. Second, although the Johannine literature occasionally mentions a direct believer–God mimesis (see Chapter 2, n. 52 or Appendix 1), the imitation of God is primarily mediated through the imitation of Jesus. That is, the Johannine literature reveals a mimetic chain where Jesus imitates the Father and in turn believers imitate Jesus, so in imitating Jesus, believers imitate the invisible God.

7.3 Implications In this section, I will show how our findings are important for both theory and practice. In other words, this section suggests how we can apply the knowledge we have acquired about Johannine mimesis to contemporary contexts. This assumes a level of acceptance of the truth claim or validity of the Johannine writings, but it may not be an unreasonable demand. In Section 2.1, we noted that the concept of mimesis exists in a relatively constant trajectory from ancient Greek philosophy to today, and in Section 7.2 we suggested that the Johannine concept of mimesis can be situated on that trajectory. By extension we can apply aspects of Johannine mimesis to contemporary contexts. Indeed, some of our findings resonate with modern notions of mimesis, which is unsurprising because theories of mimesis have remained relatively unchanged since Plato and Aristotle. For example, looking at evolutionary human development, Jordan Zlatev contends that mimesis is more complex than mere re-enactment of the external event because it ‘requires grasping the purpose (intention) behind the modeled event’.18 I will relate

17. De Boer, Imitation of Paul, 9–13, 42–50. While the existence of ‘formal’ schools in the tannaitic period (10–200 CE) is debated, de Boer is undoubtedly correct that pupils sought to imitate their teacher. For a brief introduction to the rabbinic educational system, see Craig A. Evans, ‘Judaism, Post-A.D. 70’, in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, ed. Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 608–9. For the concept of mimesis in the rabbinic literature, see also Ron Naiweld, ‘Mastering the Disciple: Mimesis in the Master–Disciple Relationships of Rabbinic Literature’, in Volp, Horn and Zimmermann, Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie, 257–70. 18. Jordan Zlatev, ‘Mimesis: The “Missing Link” between Signals and Symbols in Phylogeny and Ontogeny?’, in Mimesis, Sign and Language Evolution, ed. Anneli Pajunen, Publications in General Linguistics 3 (Turku: Turku University Press, 2002), 93–94.

Conclusion

201

our findings to two specific areas – Johannine ethics (Section 7.3.1) and moral education and (trans)formation (Section 7.3.2). 7.3.1 Johannine Ethics as Dynamic, Creative, Spirit-Led Community Ethics My main thesis is that mimesis is integral to Johannine ethics and finds expression within the context of the divine family. We found that the believers’ behaviour and identity in the divine family is modelled on that of the Father and Son, but the Johannine writings do not spell out the particulars of this mimetic behaviour. The mimetic directives to serve and love one another lack specifics, but are to be driven by Spirit-led thinking. Burridge rightly claims that with an ethics of imitation ‘we do not need a definition, or any specific ethical commandments, since they are now explicated by his [Jesus’] example of footwashing and self-sacrificial love’.19 For John, mimesis is an important instrument for shaping acceptable family identity and behaviour. The centrality of mimesis in Johannine ethics means that instead of a system of moral codes and commands (as found in the Sermon on the Mount), Johannine ethics is primarily about imitating Jesus (and God).20 At the heart of the believers’ dynamic Spirit-led relationship with the Father and Son we find not a list of do’s and don’ts but mimesis as a creative, cognitive and mnemonic process that directs the believer’s conduct and character.21 There may even be scope for creating new forms of mimesis from Jesus’ teaching or personal example. I say this because John himself does so in his first letter. In 1 John 3:16, John not only reminds his audience of Jesus’ saying in John 15:13 but also turns it into a new mimetic imperative: just as Jesus laid down his life for his followers’ sake, so believers should lay down their lives for each other. Elsewhere in the letter, John seems to formulate more mimetic imperatives, such as in 1 John 2:6 (perhaps rooted in John 14:6), 1 John 3:3 (perhaps rooted in John 17:19), 1 John 3:7 (perhaps influenced by John 5:30 and 7:24), and 1 John 4:11 (a conflation of John 3:16 and 13:34). Hence, we have in 1 John instances where John imitates Jesus at a meta-level by fashioning new forms of mimetic behaviour from Jesus’ teaching and personal example. This raises the question of whether the modern reader of the Gospels can extend an action or saying of Jesus into a mimetic imperative – ‘Just as Jesus did this, so should we.’22 This dynamic, creative, Spirit-led mimesis also implies that believers are accountable for their actions. We noted at the outset that some traditions have reservations about mimesis being part of ethics (see p. 1). Our understanding of

19. Burridge, Imitating Jesus, 345. 20. See also van der Watt, ‘Ethos Being Like Jesus’, 437. 21. Nevertheless, John’s concept of mimesis has a deontological aspect. Jesus’ mimetic imperatives in 13:15 and 13:34, for example, show that mimesis is regulated by his own example. 22. In this light, the WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) movement (see p. 1) is not as odd as some would have us believe.

202

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Johannine mimesis as a creative, cognitive and volitional act for which a person is responsible rather than a mindless cloning for which one might not be accountable endorses Gerhardsson’s argument that mimesis can be an autonomous and hence genuine moral act (see Chapter 1, nn. 94–95).23 Finally, the dynamic nature of mimesis implies that the mimetic act will both correspond to and differ from the original act. Since Johannine mimesis is primarily about a faithful, creative expression of the original rather than literal replication or cloning, there is both continuity and discontinuity between the original example and the mimetic act.24 Melberg also explains how the passage of time creates both similarity and difference in mimesis so that mimesis involves both recollection or anamnesis (a movement backward in time) and repetition, that is, doing something again (a movement forward in time). Based on the principle that you cannot jump in the same river twice, any mimesis is a ‘new’ act and hence a movement forward.25 Hence, mimesis is about (re)generation because the original is reproduced in the mimetic act. When the believer imitates Jesus, Jesus ‘reproduces’ himself as it were, so that the believer’s mimetic act becomes a channel through which the beneficiary can experience Jesus too. Hence, authentic mimesis provides not a second-hand but a first-hand experience of Jesus. This would explain, for example, Jesus’ saying in 13:20 that ‘whoever receives one whom I send, receives me’. 7.3.2 Moral Education and (Trans)formation Christoph Wulf shows that mimetic learning is rooted in antiquity and confirmed by contemporary behavioural and cognitive sciences. In antiquity, education principally worked by mimesis but mimetic learning not only involved ideas, attitudes and values but also social forms of living and behaviour. Moreover, the mimetic process was not simply the copying of an example but led to ‘a difference which ensures the autonomy and creative character of its results’. In other words, the mimetic act is a reconstruction of the original by the imitator which leaves room for difference, particularity and creativity.26 Modern research has confirmed that human beings are particularly prone to learn mimetically. The ability to act ‘correctly’ in society is acquired mimetically in cultural learning processes, which simultaneously create similarity to and difference from the situations or persons they refer to.27 This coheres with our findings that appropriate behaviour in the

23. See also Brant, ‘Mimēsis in Paul’s Thought’, 288–90, 298–99. 24. See also Naiweld, ‘Mastering the Disciple’, 258. Naiweld examines the tension between repetition and innovation in the concept of mimesis in rabbinic literature. 25. Arne Melberg, Theories of Mimesis, Literature, Culture, Theory 12 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 1–6, 131–38. 26. Wulf, ‘Mimetic Learning’, 57–58 (quotation from p. 58). 27. Ibid., 60–61.

Conclusion

203

divine family, that is, social behaviour, is primarily learnt through cognitive mimetic processes that have scope for creativity and different forms of expression. Mimetically learnt social behaviour relates to (trans)formation. Based on our analysis of the Johannine mimetic language in Chapter 2 and our detailed examination of the believer–Jesus/God mimesis in Chapter 4, I infer that mimesis is a crucial didactic tool. Most occurrences of the believer–Jesus/God mimesis are found in John 13–17 and 1 John, which are filled with paraenetic or didactic material. It seems that Jesus uses his own example and mimesis as the main tools for instructing his followers. If we also consider the goal of mimesis, namely that the imitator should become like the one who sets the example, we may infer that mimesis is instrumental in the moral formation of Jesus’ followers. Bringing these two ideas together, I suggest that mimesis is a critical, didactic tool through which Jesus seeks to shape the behaviour and identity of his followers. Mimesis as a didactic tool also relates to the area of virtue ethics. Jesus’ aim was not simply to include his disciples in his programme or mission but also to transform their character and conduct by being a virtuous role model. Personal example is a great motivator for character formation. Many contemporary contexts have scope for this kind of mimesis. For example, modern management theories support models of leadership that are more about influence and mentoring, rooted in personal example. Likewise, industries have apprenticeship programmes where people learn a profession through imitation. In education, teachers could model critical thinking for their students, enabling them to hone their skills and discover their vocation. Similarly, parents should be role models for their children, enabling them to maximize their potential and find their place in the world. In Christian ministry, the pastor should be a role model for the congregation, and mature Christians should be exemplars for new believers in order to build up the church and increase its impact in the world. Mimesis effects moral transformation. When John writes to his fellow believers, ‘Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he [Jesus] is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is’ (1 John 3:2), he might be implying that believers will be like Jesus because they have imitated him during their time on earth. This implies the concept of transformation through imitation. We have seen in our study that mimesis benefits three kinds of people – the imitator, fellow believers and others. First, mimesis benefits the imitator in that regular mimetic behaviour results in the imitator becoming increasingly like Jesus (personal moral transformation).28 Second, mimesis benefits other believers. The mimetic acts of service and love to one another are intended for members of the community of faith in order to shape their shared identity and life (corporate moral transformation). Third, mimesis occurs for the sake of non-believers.

28. Regarding the Son–Father mimesis, the Son, of course, does not imitate the Father in order to become like him (the Son is like and equal to the Father; cf. 1:1; 5:18; 10:30) but for the sake of people, revealing and mediating the invisible God to the world.

204

Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

Even though John does not explicitly mention outsiders as potential beneficiaries of the believers’ mimetic acts, we made a case in Section 4.3.5 that this is implied. The love and unity among believers (in imitation of Jesus) attests to outsiders that believers are Jesus’ community and that Jesus is God’s authorized agent (13:35; 17:21). The purpose of believers being sent into the world in imitation of Jesus (17:18; 20:21) is to testify about him (15:27) and continue his life-giving mission (believers are auxiliary sources of life in imitation of Jesus as the source of life) so that people may come to believe (17:20). In short, the mimetic behaviour among believers benefits outsiders in various ways and some mimetic acts, such as service and love, should logically be extended to outsiders. Mimesis is ultimately for the sake of others and not merely a private affair. Believers imitate Jesus (and occasionally God as they come to know him through Jesus) for their own sake (to become like Jesus/God) and for the sake of others (to mediate the divine reality). Indeed, John presents the imitation of Jesus as serving a greater good: for example, the mimetic imperative to love one another in 13:34 does not only benefit fellow believers but also outsiders since 13:35 follows 13:34, presenting to the world a Christ-centred community of love, so that outsiders may respond to Jesus. Mimesis is thus a critical tool for the moral transformation of individual believers and the believing community, as well as for potentially attracting non-believers.

7.4 Recommendations for Further Research Since this is the first organized study on the Johannine concept of mimesis, there are issues that need refinement and further research. I mention three areas in particular. First, the relationship between mimesis and theosis. In Sections 4.4.1– 4.4.2, we encountered existential mimesis: ‘to be one with the Father and Son’, ‘to be in the Father and Son’ and ‘to be like Jesus’. In addition, the goal of the believer– Jesus mimesis is that believers become increasingly like Jesus (and hence God). In short, both performative mimesis and existential mimesis seem to indicate that believers do not only imitate Jesus’ example but also his very being. Although Christians are ‘called upon to be like Jesus, not to be Jesus’,29 I contend that if I have a valid understanding of existential mimesis, this needs further discussion. Second, in Chapter 5, I suggested that there might be a link between virtue ethics and mimesis. While I argued that mimesis is integral to Johannine ethics, we can be more precise when we relate Johannine ethics to the main forms of normative ethics – deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics. Although the Johannine literature is not devoid of duty to rules (deontology) or the outcomes of actions (consequentialism), I contend that virtue ethics corresponds most closely to Johannine ethics since virtue ethics stresses moral character and the virtues (i.e. traits of moral excellence) that a person embodies as the basis for determining or

29. Stanley Hauerwas, The Peacable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983), 76.

Conclusion

205

evaluating ethical behaviour. We briefly touched on virtue ethics in Chapter 5, and our findings suggest that mimesis is a vital aspect of, or instrumental in, virtue ethics. To put it differently, Johannine ethics is a ‘Christian’ form of virtue ethics, with mimetic ethics as a subset of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics contains a mimetic aspect in that a person can function as a virtuous role model or personal example for imitation. The goal of mimesis is virtue. This aretological aspect of character in relation to mimetic ethics needs further research. Third, in Section 7.2, I tentatively sketched how Johannine mimesis can be situated in early Christianity, Second Temple Judaism and Graeco-Roman antiquity. While I intend to test my hunch in the next research project on mimesis, broadening its scope to early Christianity – both the first-century New Testament writings and the second-century writings of the Apostolic Fathers – more people might want to take on such a project.

Appendix 1 Occurrences of Mimesis in the Johannine Literature

This table shows all mimetic occurrences and their most significant aspects in the Johannine literature. Who Imitates Whom?

Type of Mimesis

Mimetic Strength

ἃ γὰρ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ποιῇ, ταῦτα καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ…ζῳοποιεῖ, οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζῳοποιεῖ ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ καθὼς ἀπέστειλέν με ὁ ζῶν πατὴρ κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, καὶ ὁ τρώγων με κἀκεῖνος ζήσει δι᾽ ἐμέ κἀγὼ ἃ ἤκουσα παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κόσμον καθὼς ἐδίδαξέν με ὁ πατὴρ ταῦτα λαλῶ ἃ ἐγὼ ἑώρακα παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ λαλῶ· καὶ ὑμεῖς οὖν ἃ ἠκούσατε παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ποιεῖτε . . . εἰ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐστε, τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ἐποιεῖτε

Jesus, Father Jesus, Father

performative performative

strong strong

to do (anything) to give life

Jesus, Father

quasi-existential

strong

to possess life

disciples, Jesus

quasi-existential

weak

to live, to have life

Jesus, Father

performative

weak

to speak

Jesus, Father οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, God and Abraham

performative performative (tentatively)

medium weak

γινώσκω τὰ ἐμὰ καὶ γινώσκουσί με τὰ ἐμά, καθὼς γινώσκει με ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ γινώσκω τὸν πατέρα

Jesus and disciples, Father and Jesus

quasi-existential

weak

Reference

Mimetic Expression

John 5:19 John 5:21 John 5:26 John 6:57 John 8:26 John 8:28 John 8:38-39

John 10:14-15

Mimetic Imperative

yes

Aspect of Mimesis

to speak/teach to behave (rather than imitating God and Abraham, οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι imitate the devil) mutual knowing

(Continued )

208

Reference

Mimetic Expression

Who Imitates Whom?

Type of Mimesis

Mimetic Strength

John 12:26

ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται

disciples, Jesus

existential

strong

John 12:50 John 13:14

καθὼς εἴρηκέν μοι ὁ πατήρ, οὕτως λαλῶ εἰ οὖν ἐγὼ ἔνιψα ὑμῶν τοὺς πόδας . . . καὶ ὑμεῖς ὀφείλετε ἀλλήλων νίπτειν τοὺς πόδας καθὼς ἐγὼ ἐποίησα ὑμῖν καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιῆτε καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἦτε

Jesus, Father disciples, Jesus

performative performative

strong medium

disciples, Jesus disciples, Jesus disciples, Jesus

performative performative existential

strong strong strong

disciples, Jesus

performative

medium

John 14:16

ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ κἀκεῖνος ποιήσ ει ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑμῖν

Spirit, Jesus

performative

weak

John 14:19 John 14:27

ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσετε οὐ καθὼς ὁ κόσμος δίδωσιν ἐγὼ δίδωμι ὑμῖν

quasi- existential performative

weak medium

John 15:4

καθὼς τὸ κλῆμα οὐ δύναται καρπὸν φέρειν ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ἐὰν μὴ μένῃ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ, οὕτως οὐδὲ ὑμεῖς ἐὰν μὴ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένητε καθὼς ἠγάπηςέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ὑμᾶς ἠγάπησα ἐὰν τὰς ἐντολάς μου τηρήσητε, μενεῖτε ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῃ μου, καθὼς ἐγὼ τὰς ἐντολὰς τοῦ πατρός μου τετήρηκα καὶ μένω αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ἀγάπῇ ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει . . . ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑμῖν ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς

disciples, Jesus Jesus, not the world disciples, branches

performative (tentatively)

weak

to bear fruit (through abiding)

Jesus, Father disciples, Jesus

performative performative

strong strong

disciples, Jesus Jesus, Father Spirit, Jesus

performative performative performative

strong medium medium

to love to be obedient in order to remain in a loving relationship to love one another to speak to speak (teach)

disciples, Father and Son disciples, Jesus

existential

strong

unity

existential

strong

not a member of the world

John 13:15 John 13:34 John 14:3 John 14:12

John 15:12 John 15:15 John16:13-15 John 17:11 John 17:14

οὐκ εἰσὶν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου

Aspect of Mimesis

yes

to be in a specific place (where Jesus is) to speak to serve one another

yes yes

to serve one another to love one another to be in a specific place (where Jesus is) to do miraculous works the Spirit will imitate Jesus’ functions to live to give peace

yes

Appendix 1

John 15:9 John 15:10

Mimetic Imperative

Reference

Mimetic Expression

John 17:16

ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου οὐκ εἰσὶν καθὼς ἐγὼ οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου καθὼς ἐμὲ ἀπέστειλας εἰς τὸν κόσμον, κἀγὼ ἀπέστειλα αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸν κόσμον καθὼς σύ, πάτερ, ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν σοί, ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν κἀγὼ τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς ἵνα ὦσιν ἓν καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν

John 17:18 John 17:21 John 17:22a John 17:22b John 17:24

1 John 2:6 1 John 3:2 1 John 3:3 1 John 3:7 1 John 3:12 1 John 3:16 1 John 4:11 1 John 4:17 3 John 11

Type of Mimesis

Mimetic Strength

disciples, Jesus

existential

strong

performative existential existential

strong strong strong

not a member of the world to send into the world to be sent into the world mutual indwelling

performative existential

weak strong

to honour unity

existential

strong

performative existential performative

strong strong strong

to be in a specific place (where Jesus is) to send into the world to be sent into the world to conduct oneself

existential performative

medium medium

to be like Jesus to purify oneself

existential (with a performative aspect) performative

strong

to be righteous

strong

yes

not to imitate the devil

performative

medium

yes

to lay down one’s life

performative

strong

yes

to love one another

existential

strong

performative

strong

yes

Aspect of Mimesis

to be in the world yes

to imitate what is good

209

Jesus, Father disciples, Jesus disciples, Father and Son Jesus, Father disciples, Father and Son Πάτερ, ὃ δέδωκάς μοι, θέλω ἵνα ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ κἀκεῖνοι disciples, Jesus ὦσιν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ καθὼς ἀπέσταλκέν με ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ πέμπω ὑμᾶς Jesus, Father disciples, Jesus ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος believers, Jesus περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα believers, Jesus καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει believers, Jesus ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος believers, Jesus δίκαιός ἐστιν οὐ καθὼς Κάϊν ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἦν καὶ ἔσφαξεν τὸν believers, not ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ Cain ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν; καὶ ἡμεῖς believers, Jesus ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν believers, God ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν καθὼς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ believers, God τούτῳ μὴ μιμοῦ τὸ κακὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ ἀγαθόν Gaius, good not evil

Mimetic Imperative

Appendix 1

John 20:21

Who Imitates Whom?

Bibliography Commentaries Barrett, C.K. The Gospel according to St. John. Second ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Beasley-Murray, George R. John. WBC 36. Waco, TX: Word, 1987. Beutler, Johannes. Das Johannesevangelium: Kommentar. Freiburg: Herder, 2013. ——Die Johannesbriefe. RNT. Regensburg; Pustet, 2000. Black, C. Clifton. ‘1, 2, and 3 John’. Pages 365–469 in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck et al. Volume 12. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Brant, Jo-Ann A. John. Paideia. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. Brown, Raymond E. The Epistles of John. AB 30. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982. ——The Gospel according to John. 2 vols. AB 29–29A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966, 1970. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Translated by G.R. Beasley-Murray. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971. ——The Johannine Epistles. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1973. Calvin, John. The Gospel according to St John 11–21 and the First Epistle of John. Translated by T.H.L. Parker. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1961. Carson, D.A. The Gospel according to John. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1991. Culy, Martin. 1, 2, 3 John: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004. Dietzfelbinger, Christian. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. 2 vols. Zürcher Bibelkommentare 4. Zürich: TVZ, 2001. Houlden, J. Leslie. A Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. BNTC. Revised ed. London: A&C Black, 1994. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Peabody : Hendrickson, 2003. Klauck, Hans-Josef. Der erste Johannesbrief. EKKNT 23.1. Zürich: Benziger/NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1991. Köstenberger, Andreas J. John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. Lecture de l’Évangile selon Jean. 3 vols. Paris: Seuil, 1988, 1990, 1993. Lieu, Judith M. I, II & III John: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel according to Saint John. BNTC 4. London: Continuum, 2005. Loader, William. The Johannine Epistles. Epworth Commentaries. London: Epworth, 1992. Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Marshall, I. Howard. The Epistles of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Michaels, J. Ramsey. The Gospel of John. NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John. SP 4. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1998. Neyrey, Jerome H. The Gospel of John. NCBC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Painter, John. 1, 2, and 3 John. SP 18. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002.

Bibliography

211

Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Gospel according to St John. 3 vols. London: Burns & Oates, 1968, 1980, 1982. ——The Johannine Epistles. Translated by R. Fuller and I. Fuller. London: Burns & Oates, 1992. Schnelle, Udo. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. ThHK 4. Fourth ed. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2009. ——Die Johannesbriefe. ThHK 17. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2010. Siegert, Folker. Das Evangelium des Johannes in seiner ursprünglichen Gestalt. SIJD 7. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008. Smalley, Stephen S. 1, 2, 3 John. WBC 51. Revised ed. Dallas: Nelson, 2007. Smith, D. Moody. John. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Strecker, Georg. The Johannine Letters: A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Thyen, Hartwig. Das Johannesevangelium. HKNT 6. Second ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Wengst, Klaus. Das Johannesevangelium. 2 vols. THKNT 4.1–4.2. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2000, 2001. ——Der erste, zweite und dritte Brief des Johannes. ÖTK 16. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Mohn, 1978. Wilckens, Ulrich. Das Evangelium nach Johannes. NTD 4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Yarbrough, Robert W. 1–3 John. BECNT. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008. Zumstein, Jean. Das Johannesevangelium. KEK 2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016. ——L’Évangile selon Saint Jean. 2 vols. CNT IVa–b. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2007.

Other Literature Aaron, David H. Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery. BRLA 4. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Adam, Peter James Hedderwick. ‘The practice of the imitation of Christ with special reference to the theology of Dietrich Bonnhoeffer’. PhD diss., Durham University, 1981. Allison, Dale C. Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History. London: SPCK, 2010. Auerbach, Eric. Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953. Augenstein, Jörg. Das Liebesgebot im Johannesevangelium und in den Johannesbriefen. BWANT 134. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993. Baban, Octavian D. On the Road Encounters in Luke–Acts: Hellenistic Mimesis and Luke’s Theology of the Way. PBMS. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2006. Barbarick, Clifford A. ‘The Pattern and the Power: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter’. PhD diss., Baylor University, 2011. Bauckham, Richard. ‘Did Jesus Wash His Disciples’ Feet?’. Pages 191–206 in idem, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007. ——Gospel of Glory: Major Themes in Johannine Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015. ——Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006.

212

Bibliography

——Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. ——‘The General and the Particular in Memory: A Critique of Dale Allison’s Approach to the Historical Jesus’. JSHJ 14 (2016): 28–51. Belleville, Linda L. ‘“Imitate Me, Just as I Imitate Christ”: Discipleship in the Corinthian Correspondence’. Pages 120–42 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Bennema, Cornelis. ‘Christ, the Spirit and the Knowledge of God: A Study in Johannine Epistemology’. Pages 107–33 in The Bible and Epistemology: Biblical Soundings on the Knowledge of God. Edited by Mary Healy and Robin Parry. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2007. ——Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of John. Second ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014. ——Mimesis as a Religio-Ethical Concept in Early Christianity: A Study of the Concept in Its Graeco-Roman and Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Fortress, forthcoming. ——‘Mimetic Ethics in the Gospel of John’. Pages 205–17 in Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis– Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE VII. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. ——‘Mimesis in John 13: Cloning or Creative Articulation?’. NovT 56 (2014): 261–74. ——‘Moral Transformation in the Johannine Writings’. In die Skriflig 51.3 (2017): 1–7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v51i3.2120. ——‘The Giving of the Spirit in John 19–20: Another Round’. Pages 86–104 in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner. Edited by I. Howard Marshall, Volker Rabens and Cornelis Bennema. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012. ——‘The Identity and Composition of οἱ Ιουδαῖοι in the Gospel of John’. TynBul 60 (2009): 239–63. ——The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel. WUNT II/148. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. ——‘Virtue Ethics and the Johannine Writings’. Forthcoming in Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Edited by Sherri Brown and Christopher W. Skinner. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. ——‘Virtue Ethics in the Gospel of John: The Johannine Characters as Moral Agents’. Pages 167–81 in Rediscovering John: Essays on the Fourth Gospel in Honour of Frédéric Manns. Edited by L. Daniel Chrupcała. SBFA 80. Milan: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2013. Best, Ernest. Disciples and Discipleship: Studies in the Gospel according to Mark. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986. ——Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark. JSNTSup 4. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Betz, Hans Dieter. Nachfolge und Nachahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament. BHT 37. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1967. Bevere, Allan R. Sharing in the Inheritance: Identity and the Moral Life in Colossians. JSNTSup 226. London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003. Boersma, Hans. ‘A New Age Love Story: Worldview and Ethics in the Gospel of John’. CTJ 38 (2003): 103–19. Bolyki, János. ‘Ethics in the Gospel of John’. Communio Viatorum 45 (2003): 198–208. Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Nachfolge. München: Kaiser, 1958. Boyce, J.L. ‘Graceful Imitation: “Imitators of Us and the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 1:6)’. Word & World Supplement 1 (1992): 139–46.

Bibliography

213

Boyer, Pascal. ‘What Are Memories For? Functions of Recall in Cognition and Culture’. Pages 3–28 in Memory in Mind and Culture. Edited by Pascal Boyer and James V. Wertsch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Brant, Jo-Ann A. ‘The Place of Mimēsis in Paul’s Thought’. Studies in Religion 22 (1993): 285–300. Braun, F.-M. Jean le Théologien: Sa Théologie. Le Mystère de Jésus-Christ. Paris: Gabalda, 1966. Brawley, Robert L. ‘John’. Pages 48–51 in The New Testament and Ethics: A Book-by-Book Survey. Edited by Joel B. Green. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Brewer, William F. ‘What Is Recollective Memory?’. Pages 19–66 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Brown, Raymond E. ‘The Paraclete in the Fourth Gospel’. NTS 13 (1966–1967): 113–32. Brown, Sherri, and Christopher W. Skinner, eds. Johannine Ethics: The Moral World of the Gospel and Epistles of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017. Bryan, Steven M. ‘Power in the Pool: The Healing of the Man at Bethesda and Jesus’ Violation of the Sabbath (John. 5:1-18)’. TynBul 54 (2003): 7–22. ——‘The Eschatological Temple in John 14’. BBR 15 (2005): 187–98. Buber, Martin. ‘Nachahmung Gottes’. Der Morgen 1 (1925–1926): 638–47. Buch-Hansen, Gitte. “It Is the Spirit That Gives Life”: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel. BZNW 173. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010. Burridge, Richard A. Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007. ——‘Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to the Ethics of the Historical Jesus and John’s Gospel’. Pages 281–90 in John, Jesus, and History. Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. ——What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography. Second ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Cable, Paul S. ‘Imitatio Christianorum: The Function of Believers as Examples in Philippians’. TynBul 67 (2016): 105–25. Cahill, Lisa Sowle. ‘Christian Character, Biblical Community, and Human Values’. Pages 3–17 in Character and Scripture: Moral Formation, Community, and Biblical Interpretation. Edited by William P. Brown. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Campbell, Joan Cecelia. Kinship Relations in the Gospel of John. CBQMS 42. Washington: Catholic Biblical Association, 2007. Capes, David B. ‘Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre’. BBR 13 (2003): 1–19. Carson, D.A. ‘Syntactical and Text-Critical Observations on John 20:3–31: One More Round on the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel’. JBL 124 (2005): 693–714. ——‘The Purpose of the Fourth Gospel: John 20:30-31 Reconsidered’. JBL 106 (1987): 639– 51. Castelli, Elizabeth A. Imitating Paul: A Discourse of Power. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991. Christianson, Sven-Åke, and Martin A. Safer. ‘Emotional Events and Emotions in Autobiographical Memories’. Pages 218–43 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Clarke, Andrew D. ‘“Be Imitators of Me”: Paul’s Model of Leadership’. TynBul 49 (1998): 329–60.

214

Bibliography

Clark-Soles, Jamie. ‘John 13: Of Footwashing and History’. Pages 255–69 in John, Jesus, and History. Volume 2: Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel. Edited by Paul N. Anderson, Felix Just and Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Collins, P.M. Trinitarian Theology: West and East. Karl Barth, the Cappadocian Fathers, and John Zizioulas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Collins, Raymond F. ‘“A New Commandment I Give to You, That You Love One Another . . .” (John 13:34)’. Pages 101–36 in idem, Christian Morality: Biblical Foundations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986. Collinson, Sylvia Wilkey. Making Disciples: The Significance of Jesus’ Educational Methods for Today’s Church. PTM. Carlisle: Paternoster, 2004. Coloe, Mary L. Dwelling in the Household of God: Johannine Ecclesiology and Spirituality. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2007. ——‘Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot Washing in John 13’. CBQ 66 (2004): 400–415. Conway, Martin A. ‘Autobiographical Knowledge and Autobiographical Memories’. Pages 67–93 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Copan, Victor A. ‘Μαθητής and Μιμητής: Exploring an Entangled Relationship’. BBR 17 (2007): 313–23. Countryman, L. William. The Mystical Way in the Fourth Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Crook, Zeba A. ‘Collective Memory Distortion and the Quest for the Historical Jesus’. JSHJ 11 (2013): 53–76. Culpepper, R. Alan. ‘The Johannine Hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13’. Semeia 53 (1991): 133–52. Culy, Martin M. Echoes of Friendship in the Gospel of John. New Testament Monographs 30. Sheffield: Phoenix, 2010. Czachesz, István, ‘From Mirror Neurons to Morality: Cognitive and Evolutionary Foundations of Early Christian Ethics’. Pages 271–87 in Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis– Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE VII. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. De Boer, Willis Peter. The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study. Kampen: Kok, 1962. Dodd, Brian. Paul’s Paradigmatic ‘I’: Personal Example as Literary Strategy. LNTS 177. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Dodd, C.H. ‘A Hidden Parable in the Fourth Gospel’. Pages 30–40 in idem, More New Testament Studies. Manchester: University Press, 1968. ——The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Du Rand, Jan A. ‘Perspectives on Johannine Discipleship according to the Farewell Discourses’. Neotestamentica 25 (1991): 311–25. Dunn, James D.G. ‘The Washing of the Disciples’ Feet in John 13:1-20’. ZNW 61 (1970): 247–52. Eastman, Susan. ‘Imitating Christ Imitating Us: Paul’s Educational Project in Philippians’. Pages 427–51 in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honour of Richard B. Hays. Edited by J.R. Wagner, C.K. Rowe and A.K. Grieb. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Ellman, Barat. Memory and Covenant: The Role of Israel’s and God’s Memory in Sustaining the Deuteronomic and Priestly Covenants. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

Bibliography

215

Ensor, Peter W. Jesus and His ‘Works’: The Johannine Sayings in Historical Perspective. WUNT II/85. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996. Evans, Craig A. ‘Judaism, Post-A.D. 70’. Pages 605–11 in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments. Edited by Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997. Eve, Eric. Behind the Gospels: Understanding the Oral Tradition. London: SPCK, 2013. Fiore, Benjamin. ‘Paul, Exemplification, and Imitation’. Pages 228–57 in Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook. Edited by J.P. Sampley. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2003. ——The Function of Personal Example in the Socratic and Pastoral Epistles. AnBib 105. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1986. Ford, J. Massyngbaerde. Redeemer – Friend and Mother: Salvation in Antiquity and in the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. Foster, Paul. ‘Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research’. JSHJ 10 (2012): 191–227. Fowl, Stephen E. ‘Imitation of Paul/of Christ’. Pages 428–31 in Dictionary of Paul and His Letters. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne and Ralph P. Martin. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1993. Frey, Jörg. ‘“Ethical” Traditions, Family Ethos, and Love in the Johannine Literature’. Pages 167–203 in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden. STAR 17. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ——‘Love-Relations in the Fourth Gospel: Establishing a Semantic Network’. Pages 171–98 in Repetitions and Variations in the Fourth Gospel: Style, Text, Interpretation. Edited by G. van Belle, M. Labahn and P. Maritz. BETL 223. Leuven: Peeters, 2009. Frey, Jörg, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. WUNT 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Furnish, Victor Paul. The Love Command in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1972. Gebauer, Gunter, and Christoph Wulf. Mimesis: Culture, Art, Society. Berkeley : University of California Press, 1995. Gerhardsson, Birger. ‘Agape and Imitation of Christ’. Pages 163–76 in Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church. Festschrift W.R. Farmer. Edited by E.P. Sanders. Macon: Mercer, 1987. Goodman, David Michael, and Adriana Marcelli. ‘The Great Divorce: Ethics and Identity’. Pastoral Psychology 59 (2010): 563–83. Griffiths, Michael. The Example of Jesus. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1985. Grindheim, Sigurd. ‘The Work of God or of Human Beings: A Note on John 6:29’. JETS 59 (2016): 63–66. Grönum, Nico J. ‘A Return to Virtue Ethics: Virtue Ethics, Cognitive Science and Character Education’. Verbum et Ecclesia 36.1 (2015): 1–6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v36i1.1413. Hakola, Raimo. ‘The Reception and Development of the Johannine Tradition in 1, 2 and 3 John’. Pages 17–47 in The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel. Edited by T. Rasimus. NovTSup 132. Leiden: Brill, 2010. Halbwachs, Maurice. The Collective Memory. Translated by F.J. Ditter and V.Y. Ditter. New York: Harper & Row, 1980. Halliwell, Stephen. The Aesthetics of Mimesis: Ancient Texts and Modern Problems. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002. Harrison, James R. ‘The Imitation of the “Great Man” in Antiquity: Paul’s Inversion of a Cultural Icon’. Pages in 213–54 in Christian Origins and Greco-Roman Culture: Social

216

Bibliography

and Literary Contexts for the New Testament. Vol. 1 of Early Christianity in Its Hellenistic Context. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts. TENTS 9. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Hartin, Patrick J. ‘Remain in Me (John 15:5): The Foundation of the Ethical and Its Consequence in the Farewell Discourses’. Neotestamentica 25 (1991): 341–56. Hartley, John E. Leviticus. WBC 4. Dallas: Word, 1992. Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981. ——The Peaceable Kingdom: A Primer in Christian Ethics. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1983. Hauge, Matthew Ryan. ‘The Creation of Person in Ancient Narrative and the Gospel of Mark’. Pages 57–77 in Character Studies and the Gospel of Mark. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner and Matthew Ryan Hauge. LNTS 483. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Hawthorne, Gerald F. ‘The Imitation of Christ: Discipleship in Philippians’. Pages 163–79 in Patterns of Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Richard N. Longenecker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. New York: HarperCollins, 1996. Hengel, Martin. The Charismatic Leader and His Followers. Translated by James C.G. Greig. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981. Originally, Nachfolge und Charisma. BZNW 34. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1968. Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer. ‘Prinzipiell-theologische Ethik in der johanneischen Literatur’. Pages 289–307 in Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ. Edited by Friedrich Wilhelm Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE I. WUNT 238. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Hood, Jason B. Imitating God in Christ: Recapturing a Biblical Pattern. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2013. Horn, Friedrich W. ‘Mimetische Ethik im Neuen Testament’. Pages 195–204 in Metapher– Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE VII. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Horsley, Richard A. Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993. Houlden, J. Leslie. Ethics in the New Testament. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973. Houston, Graham. Leading by Example: Peter’s Way for the Church Today. Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2008. Hultgren, Arland J. ‘The Johannine Footwashing (13.1-11) as Symbol of Eschatological Hospitality’. NTS 28 (1982): 539–46. Hurtado, Larry W. ‘Remembering and Revelation: The Historic and Glorified Jesus in the Gospel of John’. Pages 195–213 in Israel’s God and Rebecca’s Children: Christology and Community in Early Judaism and Christianity. Edited by David B. Capes, April D. DeConick, Helen K. Bond and Troy A. Miller. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2007. Irwin, Terence. Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics. Translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Glossary. Second ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1999. Jensen, Michael. ‘Imitating Paul, Imitating Christ: How does imitation work as a moral concept?’. Churchman 124.4 (2010): 17–36. Kanagaraj, Jey J. ‘The Implied Ethics of the Fourth Gospel: A Reinterpretation of the Decalogue’. TynBul 52 (2001): 33–60. Karakolis, Christos. ‘Semeia Conveying Ethics in the Gospel according to John’. Pages 192– 212 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by

Bibliography

217

Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Käsemann, Ernst. The Testament of Jesus: A Study of the Gospel of John in the Light of Chapter 17. Translated by Gerhard Krodel. London: SCM, 1968. Keith, Chris. ‘Memory and Authenticity: Jesus Tradition and What Really Happened’. ZNW 102 (2011): 155–77. ——‘Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part One)’. EC 6 (2015): 354–76. ——‘Social Memory Theory and Gospels Research: The First Decade (Part Two)’. EC 6 (2015): 517–42. ——‘The Narratives of the Gospels and the Historical Jesus: Current Debates, Prior Debates and the Goal of Historical Jesus Research’. JSNT 38 (2016): 426–55. Kille, D. Andrew. ‘Imitating Christ: Jesus as Model in Cognitive Learning Theory’. Pages 251–63 in Text and Community: Essays in Memory of Bruce M. Metzger. Edited by J. Harold Ellens. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007. Kim, Seyoon. ‘Imitatio Christi (1 Corinthians 11:1): How Paul Imitates Jesus Christ in Dealing with Idol Food (1 Corinthians 8–10)’. BBR 13 (2003): 193–226. Kim, Yung Suk. A Theological Introduction to Paul’s Letters. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2011. Kirk, Alan. ‘Memory Theory: Cultural and Cognitive Approaches to the Gospel Tradition’. Pages 57–67 in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris. London: Routledge, 2010. ——‘The Memory-Tradition Nexus in the Synoptic Tradition: Memory, Media, and Symbolic Representation’. Pages 131–59 in Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Semeia Studies Series 78. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Kirk, Alan, and Tom Thatcher, eds. Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. Semeia Studies Series 52. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Kittel, Gerhard. ‘ἀκολουθέω, κτλ.’. TDNT 1:210–16. Koester, Craig R. The Word of Life: A Theology of John’s Gospel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008. Köstenberger, Andreas J. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Scott R. Swain. Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel. NSBT 24. Downers Grove: Apollos, 2008. Kurz, William S. ‘Kenotic Imitation of Paul and of Christ in Philippians 2 and 3’. Pages 103– 26 in Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Kwon, Soon-Gu. Christ as Example: The Imitatio Christi Motive in Biblical and Christian Ethics. Uppsala Studies in Social Ethics 21. Uppsala: Uppsala University Press, 1998. Labahn, Michael. ‘“It’s Only Love” – Is That All? Limits and Potentials of Johannine “Ethic” – A Critical Evaluation of Research’. Pages 3–43 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Lamb, David A. Text, Context and the Johannine Community: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of the Johannine Writings. LNTS 477. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2014. Larsson, Edvin. Christus als Vorbild: Eine Untersuchung zu den paulinischen Tauf- und Eikontexten. ASNU 23. Lund-Uppsala: Gleerup, 1962. Laurance, John. ‘The Eucharist as the Imitation of Christ’. TS 47 (1986): 286–96.

218

Bibliography

Lazure, Noël. Les Valeurs Morales de la Théologie Johannique. Paris: Gabalda, 1965. Le Donne, Anthony. The Historiographical Jesus: Memory, Typology, and the Son of David. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009. Lee, Dorothy. Flesh and Glory: Symbol, Gender, and Theology in the Gospel of John. New York: Crossroad Publishing, 2002. Léon-Dufour, Xavier. To Act according to the Gospel. Peabody : Hendrickson, 2005. Levine, Baruch A. The JPS Torah Commentary: Leviticus. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989. Lévy, Carlos. ‘Philo’s Ethics’. Pages 146–71 in The Cambridge Companion to Philo. Edited by Adam Kamesar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Lindars, Barnabas. ‘Imitation of God and Imitation of Christ’. Theology 76 (1973): 394–402. Loader, William R.G. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel: Structure and Issues. BBET 23. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 1989. ——‘The Law and Ethics in John’s Gospel’. Pages 143–58 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Löhr, Hermut. ‘ Ἔργον as an Element of Moral Language in John’. Pages 229–49 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Lund, Glen. ‘The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel’. Pages 264–89 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Luz, Ulrich. Studies in Matthew. Translated by Rosemary Selle. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. MacDonald, Dennis Ronald. ‘Imitation’. Pages 407–10 in Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Ethics. Edited by Robert L. Brawley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. MacDonald, Dennis Ronald, ed. Mimesis and Intertextuality in Antiquity and Christianity. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2001. Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Third ed. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Manns, Frédéric. L’Evangile de Jean à la Lumière du Judaïsme. SBFA 33. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1991. ——‘Le lavement des pieds: Essai sur la structure et la signification de Jean 13’. RSR 55.3 (1981): 149–69. Marxsen, Willi. New Testament Foundations for Christian Ethics. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993. Matera, Frank J. New Testament Ethics: The Legacies of Jesus and Paul. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. McGrath, Alister. ‘In What Way Can Jesus Be a Moral Example for Christians’. JETS 34 (1991): 289–98. McIver, Robert K. Memory, Jesus, and the Synoptic Gospels. RBS 59. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Meeks, Wayne A. ‘The Ethics of the Fourth Evangelist’. Pages 317–26 in Exploring the Gospel of John: In Honor of D. Moody Smith. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and C. Clifton Black. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Melberg, Arne. Theories of Mimesis. Literature, Culture, Theory 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

219

Menken, Maarten J.J. ‘Envoys of God’s Envoy: On the Johannine Communities’. Pages 57– 71 in idem, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays. CBET 77. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. ——‘Genesis in John’s Gospel’. Pages 131–45 in idem, Studies in John’s Gospel and Epistles: Collected Essays. CBET 77. Leuven: Peeters, 2015. Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Michaelis, Wilhelm. ‘μιμέομαι, μιμητής, συμμιμητής’. TDNT 4: 659–74. Milchner, Hans Jürgen. Nachfolge Jesu und Imitatio Christi: die theologische Entfaltung der Nachfolgethematik seit den Anfängen der Christenheit bis in die Zeit der devotio moderna – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung religionspädagogischer Ansätze. RKK 11. Münster: LIT, 2004. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus 17–22. AB 3A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Miller, David M. ‘Ethnicity, Religion and the Meaning of Ioudaios in Ancient “Judaism”’. CurBR 12 (2014): 216–65. Moloney, Francis J. ‘A Sacramental Reading of John 13:1-38’. CBQ 53 (1991): 237–56. ——Love in the Gospel of John: An Exegetical, Theological, and Literary Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Moltmann, Jürgen. The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. Morgan, Teresa. Popular Morality in the Early Roman Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Naiweld, Ron. ‘Mastering the Disciple: Mimesis in the Master-Disciple Relationships of Rabbinic Literature’. Pages 257–70 in Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE VII. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Neyrey, Jerome H. ‘The Foot Washing in John 13:6-11: Transformation Ritual or Ceremony’. Pages 356–76 in idem, The Gospel of John in Cultural and Rhetorical Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. Nicolet, Philipe. ‘Le Concept d’imitation de l’apôtre dans la correspondance paulinienne’. Pages 393–418 in Paul, une théologie en construction. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler, JeanDaniel Kaestli and Daniel Marguerat. Le Monde de la Bible 51. Geneva: Labor et Fides, 2004. Nielsen, Jesper Tang. ‘The Narrative Structures of Glory and Glorification in the Fourth Gospel’. NTS 56 (2010): 343–66. Niemand, Christoph. Die Fusswaschungserzählung des Johannesevangeliums: Untersuchungen zu ihrer Entstehung und Überlieferung im Christentum. SA 114. Rome: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1993. Nightingale, Andrea Wilson. ‘Liberal Education in Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics’. Pages 133–74 in Education in Greek and Roman Antiquity. Edited by Yun Lee Too. Leiden: Brill, 2001. ——‘Mimesis: Ancient Greek Literary Theory’. Pages 37–47 in Literary Theory and Criticism. Edited by Patricia Waugh. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Nissen, Johannes. ‘Community and Ethics in the Gospel of John’. Pages 194–212 in New Readings in John: Literary and Theological Perspectives. Edited by Johannes Nissen and Sigfred Pedersen. JSNTSup 182. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. O’Day, Gail R. ‘Jesus as Friend in the Gospel of John’. Int 58 (2004): 144–57. Oepke, Albrecht. ‘Nachfolge und Nachahmung Christi im Neuen Testament’. AELKZ 71 (1938): 853–69.

220

Bibliography

Ong, Walter J. ‘Mimesis and the Following of Christ’. Religion and Literature 26.2 (1994): 73–77. Osiek, Carolyn, and David L. Balch. Families in the New Testament World. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997. Owanga-Welo, Jean. ‘The Function and Meaning of the Footwashing in the Johannine Passion Narrative: A Structural Approach’. PhD diss., Emory University, 1980. Pakaluk, Michael. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Patte, Daniel. The Challenge of Discipleship: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999. Pennington, Jonathan T. Reading the Gospels Wisely: A Narrative and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Perkins, Pheme. Jesus as Teacher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Petersen, Anders Klostergaard. ‘Attaining Divine Perfection through Different Forms of Imitation’. Numen 60 (2013): 7–38. Pillemer, David B. Momentous Events, Vivid Memories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998. Pinnock, Clark H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1996. Plummer, Robert L. ‘Imitation of Paul and the Church’s Missionary Role in 1 Corinthians’. JETS 44 (2001): 219–35. Popkes, Enno Edzard. Die Theologie der Liebe Gottes in den johanneischen Schriften: Zur Semantik der Liebe und zum Motivkreis des Dualismus. WUNT II/197. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Porter, Stanley E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Second ed. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Potolsky, Matthew. Mimesis. New York: Routledge, 2006. Pregeant, Russell. Knowing Truth, Doing Good: Engaging New Testament Ethics. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008. Proudfoot, C. Merrill. ‘Imitation or Realistic Participation? A Study of Paul’s Concept of “Suffering with Christ”’. Int 17 (1963): 140–60. Rabens, Volker. ‘Johannine Perspectives on Ethical Enabling in the Context of Stoic and Philonic Ethics’. Pages 114–39 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. ——‘Pneuma and the Beholding of God: Reading Paul in the Context of Philonic Mystical Traditions’. Pages 299–312 in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Jörg Frey and John R. Levison. Ekstasis 5. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014. ——‘The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A “Western” Perspective’. Pages 187–220 in The Holy Spirit and the Church according to the New Testament. Edited by Predrag Dragutinovic, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and James Buchanan Wallace. WUNT 354. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. ——The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life. Second ed. WUNT II/283. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Rainbow, Paul A. Johannine Theology: The Gospel, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2014. Reinhartz, Adele. ‘On the Meaning of the Pauline Exhortation: “Mimetai Mou Ginesthe – Become Imitators of Me”’. Studies in Religion 16 (1987): 393–403.

Bibliography

221

Rengstorf, Karl H. ‘μανθάνω, κτλ.’, TDNT 4:390–461. Rensberger, David. Johannine Faith and Liberating Community. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. Richter, Georg. ‘Die Fußwaschung Joh 13,1-20’. MTZ 16 (1965): 13–26. Ricoeur, Paul. ‘Mimesis and Representation’. Annals of Scholarship 2 (1981): 15–32. ——Time and Narrative. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung zum Ursprung der EvangelienUberlieferung. WUNT II/7. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1981. Ringe, Sharon H. Wisdom’s Friends: Community and Christology in the Fourth Gospel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Robinson, John A. ‘Perspective, Meaning, and Remembering’. Pages 199–217 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Rohrbaugh, Richard. ‘Honor: Core Value in the Biblical World’. Pages 109–25 in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris. New York: Routledge, 2010. Rubin, David C. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–15 in Remembering Our Past: Studies in Autobiographical Memory. Edited by David C. Rubin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Sadananda, Daniel Rathnakara. The Johannine Exegesis of God: An Exploration into the Johannine Understanding of God. BZNW 121. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. Sakaranah, Tuula. ‘Religion and the Study of Social Memory’. Temenos 47 (2011): 135–58. Sanders, Boykin. ‘Imitating Paul: 1 Cor 4:16’. HTR 74 (1981): 353–63. Sanders, Jack T. Ethics in the New Testament: Change and Development. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. Schenk, Wolfgang. Kommentiertes Lexikon zum Vierten Evangelium: Seine Textkonstituenten in ihren Syntagmen und Wortfeldern. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen, 1993. Schlier, Heinrich. ‘δείκνυμι, κτλ.’, TDNT 2:25–33. Schmid, Hansjörg. Gegner im 1. Johannesbrief? Zu Konstruktion und Selbstreferenz im johanneischen Sinnsystem. BWANT 159. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002. Schnackenburg, Rudolf. The Moral Teaching of the New Testament. London: Burns & Oates, 1975. Schneiders, Sandra M. ‘The Foot Washing (John 13:1-20): An Experiment in Hermeneutics’. CBQ 43 (1981): 76–92. Schnelle, Udo. ‘Johanneische Ethik’. Pages 309–27 in Eschatologie und Ethik im frühen Christentum. Edited by Christfried Böttrich. GthF 11. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2006. Scholtissek, Klaus. ‘“Eine größere Liebe als diese hat niemand, als wenn einer sein Leben hingibt für seine Freunde” (Joh 15,13): Die hellenistische Freundschaftsethik und das Johannesevangelium’. Pages 413–39 in Kontexte des Johannesevangeliums: Das vierte Evangelium in religions- und traditionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive. Edited by Jörg Frey and Udo Schnelle. WUNT 175. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ——In Ihm Sein und Bleiben: Die Sprache der Immanenz in den johanneischen Schriften. Herders Biblische Studien 21. Freiburg: Herder, 2000. Schrage, Wolfgang. The Ethics of the New Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Originally: Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. Schulz, Anselm. Nachfolgen und Nachahmen: Studien über das Verhältnis der neutestamentlichen Jüngerschaft zur urchristlichen Vorbildethik. SANT 6. Kösel-Verlag: München, 1962.

222

Bibliography

Schulz, Siegfried. Neutestamentliche Ethik. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1987. Seaford, Richard. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–12 in Reciprocity in Ancient Greece. Edited by Christopher Gill, Norman Postlethwaite and Richard Seaford. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Segovia, Fernando F. ‘John 13:1-20, The Footwashing in the Johannine Tradition’. ZNW 73 (1982): 31–51. ——Love Relationships in the Johannine Tradition: Agapē/Agapan in 1 John and the Fourth Gospel. SBLDS 58. Chico: Scholars Press, 1982. ——The Farewell of the Word: The Johannine Call to Abide. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Skinner, Christopher W. ‘Virtue in the New Testament: The Legacies of John and Paul in Comparative Perspective’. Pages 301–24 in Unity and Diversity in the Gospels and Paul: Essays in Honor of Frank J. Matera. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner and Kelly R. Iverson. ECL 7. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Smalley, Stephen. ‘The Imitation of Christ in the New Testament’. Themelios 3 (1965): 13–22. Smit, Peter-Ben. Paradigms of Being in Christ: A Study of the Epistle to the Philippians. LNTS 476. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013. Smith, D. Moody. ‘Ethics and the Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel’. Pages 109–22 in Word, Theology, and Community in John. Edited by John Painter, R. Alan Culpepper and Fernando F. Segovia. St Louis, MO: Chalice, 2002. Söding, Thomas. ‘Die Nachfolgeforderung Jesu im Markusevangelium’. TTZ 94 (1985): 292–310. Sörbom, Göran. ‘The Classical Concept of Mimesis’. Pages 19–28 in A Companion to Art Theory. Edited by Paul Smith and Carolyn Wilde. Oxford: Blackwell, 2002. Spohn, William C. Go and Do Likewise: Jesus and Ethics. New York: Continuum, 2007. Stanley, David M. ‘Become Imitators of Me: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic Tradition’. Bib 40 (1959): 859–77. ——‘Imitation in Paul’s Letters: Its Significance for His Relationship to Jesus and to His Own Christian Foundations’. Pages 127–41 in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare. Edited by P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd. Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984. Stare, Mira. ‘Der Lebensbegriff als ethische Norm im Johannesevangelium’. Pages 257–80 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut–Leben–Leib–Tugend. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE IV. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ——‘Ethics of Life in the Gospel of John’. Pages 213–28 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Stefaniw, Blossom. ‘A Disciplined Mind in an Orderly World: Mimesis in Late Antique Ethical Regimes’. Pages 235–55 in Metapher–Narratio–Mimesis–Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. Edited by Ulrich Volp, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE VII. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Stettler, Hanna. ‘Die Gebote Jesu im Johannesevangelium (14,15.21; 15,10)’. Bib 92 (2011): 554–79. Stewart, Eric C. ‘Social Stratification and Patronage in Ancient Mediterranean Societies’. Pages 156–66 in Understanding the Social World of the New Testament. Edited by Dietmar Neufeld and Richard E. DeMaris. London: Routledge, 2010. Stuckenbruck, Loren T., Stephen C. Barton and Benjamin G. Wold, eds. Memory and Remembrance in the Bible and Antiquity. WUNT 212. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.

Bibliography

223

Swartley, Willard M. Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Thatcher, Tom. ‘Cain the Jew the AntiChrist: Collective Memory and the Johannine Ethic of Loving and Hating’. Pages 350–73 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Thatcher, Tom, ed. Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity: A Conversation with Barry Schwarz. Semeia Studies Series 78. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. Thomas, John Christopher. Footwashing in John 13 and the Johannine Community. JSNTSup 61. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. Thompson, Marianne Meye. ‘“His Own Received Him Not”: Jesus Washes the Feet of His Disciples’. Pages 258–73 in The Art of Reading Scriptures. Edited by Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2003. ——The God of the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. Thyen, Hartwig. ‘Johannes 13 und die “Kirchliche Redaktion” des vierten Evangeliums’. Pages 29–41 in idem, Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum. WUNT 214. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007. Tinsley, E.J. The Imitation of God in Christ: An Essay on the Biblical Basis of Christian Spirituality. London: SCM, 1960. Tobin, Thomas H. ‘The Importance of Hellenistic Judaism for the Study of Paul’s Ethics’. Pages 147–65 in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden. STAR 17. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Tolmie, D. Francois. Jesus’ Farewell to the Disciples: John 13:1–17:26 in Narratological Perspective. BibInt 12. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Turner, Max. ‘The Churches of the Johannine Letters as Communities of “Trinitarian” Koinōnia’. Pages 53–61 in The Spirit and Spirituality: Essays in Honour of Russell P. Spittler. Edited by W. Ma and R.P. Menzies. JPTSup 24. London: T&T Clark, 2004. Van der Merwe, Dirk G. ‘Imitatio Christi in the Fourth Gospel’. Verbum et Ecclesia 22 (2001): 131–48. Van der Watt, Jan G. ‘“Breek die Tempel af ”. Etiese dimensies in Johannes 2:13-22?’. HTS Theological Studies 71.1 (2015): 1–10. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v71i1.3003. ——‘Der Meisterschüler Gottes (von der Lehre des Sohnes) – John 5,19-23’. Pages 745– 54 in Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007. ——‘Ethics Alive in Imagery’. Pages 421–48 in Imagery in the Gospel of John: Terms, Forms, Themes, and Theology of Johannine Figurative Language. Edited by Jörg Frey, Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. WUNT 200. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. ——‘Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John’. ZNW 97 (2006): 147–76. ——‘Ethics in First John: A Literary and Socioscientific Perspective’. CBQ 61 (1999): 491–511. ——‘Ethics of/and the Opponents of Jesus in John’s Gospel’. Pages 175–91 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. ——‘Ethics through the Power of Language: Some Explorations in the Gospel according to John’. Pages 139–67 in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt. CNNTE II. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.

224

Bibliography

——Family of the King: Dynamics of Metaphor in the Gospel according to John. BibInt 47. Leiden: Brill, 2000. ——‘John and the Epistles of John’. Pages 444–50 in Oxford Encyclopedia of Bible and Ethics. Edited by Robert L. Brawley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. ——‘Laying Down Your Life for Your Friends’. JECH 4 (2014): 167–80. ——‘Navolging van Jezus, Mimesis and 1 Johannes’. In die Skriflig 48.1 (2014): 1–8. doi:http:// dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v48:1.1819. ——‘On the Ethics of 1 John’. Pages 197–222 in Communities in Dispute: Current Scholarship on the Johannine Epistles. Edited by R. Alan Culpepper and Paul N. Anderson. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014. ——‘Radical Social Redefinition and Radical Love: Ethics and Ethos in the Gospel according to John’. Pages 107–34 in Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. BZNW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. ——‘Reciprocity, Mimesis and Ethics in 1 John’. Pages 257–76 in Erzählung und Briefe im johanneischen Kreis. Edited by Uta Poplutz and Jörg Frey. WUNT II/420. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. ——‘Reflections on doing what is good and true in the Gospel of John’. Pages 73–92 in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums:Gut–Leben–Leib–Tugend. Edited by Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE IV. WUNT 313. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. ——‘The Ethical Implications of 2 John 10-11’. Verbum et Ecclesia 36.1 (2015): 1–7. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ve.v36i1.1483. ——‘The Ethos of Being Like Jesus: Imitation in 1 John’. Pages 415–40 in Ethos und Theologie im Neuen Testament: Festschrift für Michael Wolter. Edited by Jochen Flebbe and Matthias Konradt. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016. ——‘The Good and the Truth in John’s Gospel’. Pages 317–33 in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes: Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz. ATANT 97. Zürich: TVZ, 2009. ——‘The Gospel of John’s Perception of Ethical Behaviour’. In die Skriflig 45 (2011): 431–47. ——‘“Working the Works of God”: Identity and Behaviour in the Gospel of John’. Pages 135–50 in Paul, John, and Apocalyptic Eschatology: Studies in Honour of Martinus C. de Boer. Edited by Jan Krans, Bert Jan Lietaert-Peerbolte, Peter-Ben Smit and Arie Zwiep. NovTSup 149. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Van der Watt, Jan G., ed. Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament. BZNW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Van der Watt, Jan G., and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Van Henten, Jan Willem, and Joseph Verheyden. ‘Introduction’. Pages 1–16 in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts. Edited by Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph Verheyden. STAR 17. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Van Tilborg, Sjef. Imaginative Love in John. BibInt 2. Leiden: Brill, 1993. Verhey, Allen. The Great Reversal: Ethics and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. Volp, Ulrich, Friedrich W. Horn and Ruben Zimmermann, eds. Metapher–Narratio– Mimesis–Doxologie: Begründungsformen frühchristlicher und antiker Ethik. CNNTE VII. WUNT 356. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Von Habsburg, Maximilian. Catholic and Protestant Translations of the Imitatio Christi, 1425–1650: From Late Medieval Classic to Early Modern Bestseller. St Andrews Studies in Reformation History. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.

Bibliography

225

Voorwinde, Stephen. Jesus’ Emotions in the Fourth Gospel: Human or Divine? LNTS 284. London: T&T Clark, 2005. Wagener, Fredrik. Figuren as Handlungsmodelle: Simon Petrus, die samaritische Frau, Judas und Thomas als Zugänge zu einer narrative Ethik des Johannesevangeliums. CNNTE VI. WUNT II/408. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Watson, Francis. ‘Social Memory and Writing in the Early Jesus Tradition’. Paper presented at the 70th General Meeting of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. Amsterdam, 29 July 2015. Weaver, Jason G. ‘Paul’s Call to Imitation: The Rhetorical Function of the Theme of Imitation in its Epistolary Context’. PhD diss., Catholic University of America, 2013. Webster, John B. ‘The Imitation of Christ’. TynBul 37 (1986): 95–120. Weder, Hans. ‘Das neue Gebot: Eine Überlegung zum Liebesgebot in Johannes 13’. Pages 187–205 in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes: Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Andreas Dettwiler and Uta Poplutz. ATANT 97. Zürich: TVZ, 2009. Weiss, Herold. ‘Footwashing’. ABD 2:828–29. ——‘Footwashing in the Johannine Community’. NovT 21 (1979): 298–325. Weiss, Konrad. ‘πούς’. TDNT 6:624–31. Wenham, Gordon J. The Book of Leviticus. NICOT 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979. Weyer-Menkhoff, Karl. Die Ethik des Johannesevangeliums im sprachlichen Feld des Handelns. CNNTE V. WUNT II/359. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. ——‘The Response of Jesus: Ethics in John by Considering Scripture as Work of God’. Pages 159–74 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Wick, Peter. ‘Ahmt Jesus Christus mit mir zusammen nach! (Phil 3,17): Imitatio Pauli und invitatio Christi im Philipperbrief ’. Pages 309–26 in Der Philipperbrief des Paulus in der hellenistisch-römischen Welt. Edited by Jörg Frey and Benjamin Schliesser. WUNT 353. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Wild, Robert A. ‘“Be Imitators of God”: Discipleship in the Letter to the Ephesians’. Pages 127–43 in Discipleship in the New Testament. Edited by Fernando F. Segovia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Wilkins, Michael J. Discipleship in the Ancient World and Matthew’s Gospel. Second ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995. Williams, Donald L. ‘The Israelite Cult and Christian Worship’. Pages 110–24 in The Use of the Old Testament in the New and Other Essays. Edited by James M. Efird. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972. Williams III, H.H. Drake. ‘“Imitate Me”: Interpreting Imitation in 1 Corinthians in Relation to Ignatius of Antioch’. Perichoresis 11 (2013): 75–93. Witherington, Ben. The Indelible Image: The Theological and Ethical Thought World of the New Testament. Vol. 1 The Individual Witnesses. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009. Witmer, Stephen E. Divine Instruction in Early Christianity. WUNT II/246. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Wojciechowski, Michal. ‘La Source de Jean 13.1-20’. NTS 34 (1988): 135–41. Wolter, Michael. ‘Die ethische Identität christlicher Gemeinden in neutestamentlicher Zeit’. Pages 61–90 in Woran Orientiert Sich Ethik? Edited by Wilfried Härle and Reiner Preul. MJT 13. Marburg: Elwert, 2001.

226

Bibliography

——‘Ethos und Identität in den paulinischen Gemeinden’. NTS 43 (1997): 430–44. ——‘“Let No One Seek His Own, but Each One the Other’s” (1 Corinthians 10:24): Pauline Ethics according to 1 Corinthians’. Pages 199–217 in Identity, Ethics and Ethos in the New Testament. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt. BZNW 141. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006. Wright, Christopher J.H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 2004. Wulf, Christoph. ‘Mimetic Learning’. Designs for Learning 1 (2008): 56–67. Yoder, John Howard. The Politics of Jesus. Second ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. Zimmermann, Ruben. Christologie der Bilder im Johannesevangelium: Die Christopoetik des vierten Evangelium unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von Joh 10. WUNT 171. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. ——Die Logik der Liebe: Die ‘implizite Ethik’ der Paulusbriefe am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefs. BThSt 162. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2016. ——‘Ethics in the New Testament and Language: Basic Explorations and Eph 5:21-33 as Test Case’. Pages 19–50 in Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings. Edited by Ruben Zimmermann and Jan G. van der Watt. CNNTE II. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. ——‘Is there Ethics in the Gospel of John? Challenging an Outdated Consensus’. Pages 44– 80 in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings. Edited by Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann. CNNTE III. WUNT 291. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. ——‘Jenseits von Indikativ und Imperativ: Entwurf einer “impliziten Ethik” des Paulus am Beispiel des 1. Korintherbriefes’. Theologische Literaturzeitung 132 (2007): 259–84. ——‘Narrative Ethik im Johannesevangelium am Beispiel der Lazarus-Perikope Joh 11’. Pages 133–70 in Narrativität und Theologie im Johannesevangelium. Edited by Jörg Frey and Uta Poplutz. BThSt 130. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2012. ——‘The “Implicit Ethics” of New Testament Writings: A Draft on a New Methodology for Analysing New Testament Ethics’. Neotestamentica 43 (2009): 399–423. Zimmermann, Ruben, and Jan G. van der Watt, eds. Moral Language in the New Testament: The Interrelatedness of Language and Ethics in Early Christian Writings. CNNTE II. WUNT II/296. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010. Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985. Zlatev, Jordan. ‘Mimesis: The “Missing Link” between Signals and Symbols in Phylogeny and Ontogeny?’. Pages 93–122 in Mimesis, Sign and Language Evolution. Edited by Anneli Pajunen. Publications in General Linguistics 3. Turku: Turku University Press, 2002. Zumstein, Jean. ‘Le Lavement des Pieds (Jean 13,1-20): Un Exemple de la Conception Johannique du Puvoir’. RTP 132 (2000): 345–60.

Index of Authors Aaron, David H. 127, 130, 156 Adam, Peter James Hedderwick 1 Allison, Dale C. 180 Auerbach, Eric 31 Augenstein, Jörg 92, 99, 109–10, 114, 116, 119–20

Buch-Hansen, Gitte 161 Bultmann, Rudolf 43–44, 46, 49, 62, 71, 75–76, 79, 90, 94–95, 98, 101, 109–10, 121, 126, 173 Burridge, Richard A. 3, 13–15, 21, 23, 30, 85, 92, 109–11, 124, 201

Baban, Octavian D. 18 Balch, David L. 155 Barbarick, Clifford A. 19, 197 Barrett, C.K. 68, 72, 94, 99 Barton, Stephen C. 180 Bauckham, Richard 71, 78, 91–92, 96, 100, 102, 105, 126, 179–85 Beasley-Murray, George R. 68, 71, 97, 158 Belleville, Linda L. 18 Bennema, Cornelis 3, 15, 17, 28, 30–31, 42, 57, 67, 76, 78–79, 88, 131, 133, 136, 144, 147, 153–54, 156–57, 162, 186 Best, Ernest 85 Betz, Hans Dieter 6–8, 20, 23, 25, 84–85, 87 Beutler, Johannes 44, 49, 70 Bevere, Allan R. 28 Black, C. Clifton 134 Boersma, Hans 31 Bolyki, János 9, 151 Bonhoeffer, Dietrich 1 Boyce, J.L. 18 Boyer, Pascal 180 Brant, Jo-Ann A. 18, 31, 37, 52, 69, 89–90, 163, 202 Braun, F.-M. 92 Brawley, Robert L. 23 Brewer, William F. 181–83, 186 Brown, Raymond E. 40, 44, 49, 62, 69, 79, 94, 97, 130–33, 138, 163 Brown, Sherri 3, 16, 23 Bryan, Steven M. 67–68, 131 Buber, Martin 1

Cable, Paul S. 19 Cahill, Lisa Sowle 28, 177 Calvin, John 133 Campbell, Joan Cecelia 155 Capes, David B. 15, 18, 21, 23, 30 Carson, D.A. 73, 144, 147 Castelli, Elizabeth A. 18, 25–26 Christianson, Sven-Åke 183 Clarke, Andrew D. 18 Clark-Soles, Jamie 91 Collins, P.M. 128 Collins, Raymond F. 23, 109–11, 118, 141, 177 Collinson, Sylvia Wilkey 86, 163 Coloe, Mary L. 92, 99, 105, 131, 155 Conway, Martin A. 182 Copan, Victor A. 18, 20, 85 Countryman, L. William 92 Crook, Zeba A. 181 Culpepper, R. Alan 92, 104 Culy, Martin M. 37, 44, 95, 114, 116, 139 Czachesz, István 26, 140 De Boer, Willis Peter 5–8, 16, 20, 23–25, 40, 84–87, 104, 110, 163, 174, 196–97, 199–200 Dietzfelbinger, Christian 73, 97, 113 Dodd, Brian 18, 197 Dodd, C.H. 68, 172 Du Rand, Jan A. 83–84 Dunn, James D.G. 92, 94, 181 Eastman, Susan 18 Ellman, Barat 177

228

Index of Authors

Ensor, Peter W. 70, 76, 90 Evans, Craig A. 200 Eve, Eric 180–82 Fiore, Benjamin 17–18, 197 Ford, J. Massyngbaerde 13 Foster, Paul 181 Fowl, Stephen E. 18 Frey, Jörg 12, 15, 29, 93, 107, 109, 114, 116–17, 123, 139, 160, 162 Furnish, Victor Paul 109–10, 113, 121 Gebauer, Gunter 24, 31, 33–34, 37, 195–97 Gerhardsson, Birger 17, 20–21, 202 Goodman, David Michael 28 Griffiths, Michael 17 Grindheim, Sigurd 147 Grönum, Nico J. 153 Hakola, Raimo 2 Halbwachs, Maurice 180 Halliwell, Stephen 24, 31, 33, 197 Harrison, James R. 19, 25 Hartin, Patrick J. 23, 110–11, 141, 169 Hartley, John E. 24 Hauerwas, Stanley 30, 177, 204 Hauge, Matthew Ryan 31 Hawthorne, Gerald F. 18, 20, 85 Hays, Richard B. 9, 109, 162 Hengel, Martin 6, 84 Hirsch-Luipold, Rainer 9, 29, 120, 162 Hood, Jason B. 19, 22, 24, 85, 91 Horn, Friedrich W. 19, 87 Horsley, Richard A. 42 Houlden, J. Leslie 8, 44, 49, 106–7, 120 Houston, Graham 18 Hultgren, Arland J. 92 Hurtado, Larry W. 179 Irwin, Terence 145 Jensen, Michael 18, 21 Kanagaraj, Jey J. 9, 106 Karakolis, Christos 70 Käsemann, Ernst 108 Keener, Craig S. 46, 69, 75, 92, 97, 116, 123, 125, 131, 136, 163

Keith, Chris 181–82 Kille, D. Andrew 18 Kim, Seyoon 18 Kim, Yung Suk 18 Kirk, Alan 180–81 Kittel, Gerhard 84, 86 Klauck, Hans-Josef 44, 49, 119, 132, 138 Koester, Craig R. 121, 123 Köstenberger, Andreas J. 9, 78, 96 Kurz, William S. 17 Kwon, Soon-Gu 7–8, 18–20, 85 Labahn, Michael 4, 13, 28, 31, 106, 120–21, 144, 162 Lamb, David A. 108 Larsson, Edvin 6–8, 20, 23, 84–85, 87 Laurance, John 17 Lazure, Noël 23, 140 Le Donne, Anthony 180 Lee, Dorothy 112, 114 Léon-Dufour, Xavier 67, 95, 101, 111, 131, 173 Levine, Baruch A. 24 Lévy, Carlos 132 Lieu, Judith M. 44, 116, 118–19 Lincoln, Andrew T. 69, 73, 100–102, 147, 163 Lindars, Barnabas 5, 17 Loader, William R.G. 44, 77, 117 Löhr, Hermut 147 Lund, Glen 161, 169 Luz, Ulrich 28 MacDonald, Dennis Ronald 31, 36 Malina, Bruce J. 37, 66, 123 Manns, Frédéric 91, 94 Marcelli, Adriana 28 Marshall, I. Howard 40, 44 Marxsen, Willi 107, 111, 120 Matera, Frank J. 8, 23, 106, 108–10, 163 McGrath, Alister 2 McIver, Robert K. 181–83 Meeks, Wayne A. 2, 8, 106 Melberg, Arne 202 Menken, Maarten J.J. 90, 123, 139 Metzger, Bruce M. 44, 48, 55, 89 Michaelis, Wilhelm 5–6, 40 Michaels, J. Ramsey 70, 72, 75, 89–90, 92, 124

Index of Authors Milchner, Hans Jürgen 18, 85 Milgrom, Jacob 24 Miller, David M. 88 Moloney, Francis J. 92–93, 104, 107, 114, 120, 123, 129 Moltmann, Jürgen 128 Morgan, Teresa 197 Naiweld, Ron 200, 202 Neyrey, Jerome H. 37, 66, 90, 92 Nicolet, Philipe 18 Nielsen, Jesper Tang 66, 158 Niemand, Christoph 92, 94, 99, 101, 105 Nightingale, Andrea Wilson 86, 196 Nissen, Johannes 9, 23, 109 O’Day, Gail R. 114 Oepke, Albrecht 4 Ong, Walter J. 85, 87 Osiek, Carolyn 155 Owanga-Welo, Jean 92 Painter, John 40, 44 Pakaluk, Michael 147 Patte, Daniel 85 Pennington, Jonathan T. 21 Perkins, Pheme 73 Petersen, Anders Klostergaard 132 Pillemer, David B. 182–85 Pinnock, Clark H. 128 Plummer, Robert L. 18 Popkes, Enno Edzard 107, 109–10, 112, 115, 119–20, 123 Porter, Stanley E. 98 Potolsky, Matthew 1, 24, 30, 33–34, 196–97 Pregeant, Russell 23, 115 Proudfoot, C. 5 Rabens, Volker 106, 111, 127, 132, 169, 175, 189 Rainbow, Paul A. 23, 122–23 Reinhartz, Adele 18 Rengstorf, Karl H. 84 Rensberger, David 8, 106 Richter, Georg 92, 94 Ricoeur, Paul 31 Riesner, Rainer 17, 73 Ringe, Sharon H. 114

229

Robinson, John A. 178 Rohrbaugh, Richard L. 37, 66, 123 Rubin, David C. 182, 185 Sadananda, Daniel Rathnakara 67, 69 Safer, Martin A. 183 Sakaranah, Tuula 181 Sanders, Boykin 17 Sanders, Jack T. 8, 106, 109, 122 Schenk, Wolfgang 61, 96, 99 Schlier, Heinrich 69, 100 Schmid, Hansjörg 139 Schnackenburg, Rudolf 8, 40, 44, 71, 76, 106, 109–10, 116, 118, 121, 132, 158 Schneiders, Sandra M. 92 Schnelle, Udo 9, 23, 44, 49, 94, 97, 106, 109, 118–19, 123, 126, 132, 138, 141, 174–75 Scholtissek, Klaus 96, 109, 112–14, 116 Schrage, Wolfgang 2, 8, 23, 106, 109–10, 116, 118, 121, 125 Schulz, Anselm 6–8, 20, 23, 84–85, 87, 92, 109, 118–19 Schulz, Siegfried 9, 106, 109–10, 123 Seaford, Richard 38 Segovia, Fernando F. 52, 88, 92, 104, 107, 109–10, 112, 114, 116, 119, 133 Siegert, Folker 97, 101, 109, 113 Skinner, Christopher W. 3, 9, 16, 23 Smalley, Stephen S. 7, 44, 49, 132, 138 Smit, Peter-Ben 197 Smith, D. Moody 9, 126 Söding, Thomas 17 Sörbom, Göran 33 Spohn, William C. 21–22, 35, 96, 105, 109 Stanley, David M. 4, 17 Stare, Mira 15, 95, 157 Stefaniw, Blossom 25, 30, 165, 196 Stettler, Hanna 118 Stewart, Eric C. 37 Strecker, Georg 44, 138 Stuckenbruck, Loren T. 180 Swain, Scott R. 78 Swartley, Willard M. 18, 21 Thatcher, Tom 180–81 Thomas, John Christopher 91–92, 94, 97–98, 100, 102, 105, 164

230

Index of Authors

Thompson, Marianne Meye 72, 94 Thyen, Hartwig 71, 75, 94, 109, 123 Tinsley, E.J. 5, 7, 22–24, 84–85, 87, 90, 126, 177 Tobin, Thomas H. 117 Tolmie, D. Francois 47, 94, 100, 111 Turner, Max 129, 156, 159 Van der Merwe, Dirk G. 3, 13–14, 23, 62, 84, 98, 188 Van der Watt, Jan G. 2–3, 10–17, 23, 26, 28, 38–39, 48, 67, 73, 76–77, 86, 90, 92, 99, 107, 109, 114, 117, 120, 124, 126, 128, 131, 138, 147, 155, 158–59, 161–63, 169, 172, 176, 201 Van Henten, Jan Willem 28, 143, 162 Van Tilborg, Sjef 107, 109 Verhey, Allen 8, 106, 109–110, 122 Verheyden, Joseph 28, 143, 162 Volp, Ulrich 19 Von Habsburg, Maximilian 1 Voorwinde, Stephen 184 Wagener, Fredrik 16 Wallace, Daniel 101 Watson, Francis 181 Weaver, Jason G. 19 Webster, John B. 2, 17 Weder, Hans 110, 112, 115 Weiss, Herold 92, 100

Weiss, Konrad 100 Wengst, Klaus 44, 49, 71, 117, 119, 131 Wenham, Gordon J. 24 Weyer-Menkhoff, Karl 3, 15–16, 23, 62, 90, 169 Wick, Peter 19 Wilckens, Ulrich 71, 126 Wild, Robert A. 17 Wilkins, Michael J. 83–85, 163 Williams, Donald L. 177 Williams III, H.H. Drake 19 Witherington, Ben 110, 120 Witmer, Stephen E. 73, 76, 79, 86, 89, 163 Wojciechowski, Michal 94 Wold, Benjamin J. 180 Wolter, Michael 28, 121 Wright, Christopher J.H. 5 Wulf, Christoph 1, 24, 31, 33–34, 37, 195–97, 202 Yarbrough, Robert W. 134 Yoder, John Howard 18, 21 Zimmermann, Ruben 2–4, 9–10, 12–15, 23, 26, 28–31, 69, 106, 120, 144, 153, 155, 162, 166 Zizioulas, John D. 128 Zlatev, Jordan 200 Zumstein, Jean 41, 71, 73, 92, 94, 98–99, 110, 126