Tyndale Bulletin 69.

2 (2018) 183-203

MORAL TRANSFORMATION THROUGH

MIMESIS IN THE JOHANNINE TRADITION
Cornelis Bennema1
([Link]@[Link])

Summary
Johannine ethics is a problematic area for scholarship but recently
there has been a breakthrough. In this new era of exploring Johannine
ethics, the present study examines the concept of moral transformation
through mimesis. The argument is that when people live in God’s
world, their character and conduct are shaped in accordance with the
moral beliefs, values, and norms of the divine reality, and that mimesis
proves to be instrumental in this process of moral transformation. The
study also explores how Johannine Christians in the late first century
could imitate an ‘absent’ Jesus and what they were seeking to imitate.

1. Introduction
This study in Johannine ethics explores moral transformation through
mimesis in John’s Gospel and Letters.2 I use the term ‘moral
transformation’ to refer to ‘the shaping of a person’s character and
conduct when they understand, embrace, and live out the beliefs,
values, and norms of God’s world’. While the Johannine writings
present various kinds of mimesis, this study focuses on the believer–
Jesus mimesis, where Jesus sets the example for believers to imitate so

1 Cornelis Bennema is Extraordinary Associate Professor at the Unit for Reformed

Theology and the Development of the South African Society, Faculty of Theology,
North-West University, South Africa.
2 The use of ‘John’ for the author(s) of the Johannine writings is not a claim to a
particular historical identity. The similarities in language, syntax, style, and thought
between the Gospel and Letters warrant an examination of both writings. References to
chapter and verse only come from John’s Gospel.
184 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
that they may (gradually) become like him.3 However, it is legitimate
to speak of moral transformation and mimesis, only if we can treat the
Johannine writings as ethical texts. After all, John does not address
moral issues such as divorce, purity laws, or sexual immorality. Strictly
speaking, there is no ethics in John because there is no system of moral
codes like the Sermon on the Mount or a systematic reflection on
morality like Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. John seems to promote
only one ethic – to love one another – and even this raises many
questions. So, it is unsurprising that most scholars have ignored John
when it comes to ethics. Recently, however, two volumes of essays
have provided scholarship with a new impetus to explore Johannine
ethics.4 Nevertheless, neither volume contains an essay on moral
transformation or mimesis. Other publications on Johannine ethics also
have different emphases than our study.5 While I have written about
moral transformation and mimesis in John separately, this study links

3 The term ‘believer’ refers to a person who has pledged allegiance to Jesus as his
disciple or follower. Besides the believer–Jesus mimesis, John mentions the occasional
believer–God mimesis, the paradigmatic Son–Father mimesis, and a latent Spirit–Jesus
mimesis. See Cornelis Bennema, Mimesis in the Johannine Literature: A Study in
Johannine Ethics (LNTS 498; London: T&T Clark, 2017).
4 Jan G. van der Watt and Ruben Zimmermann, ed., Rethinking the Ethics of John:
‘Implicit Ethics’ in the Johannine Writings (WUNT 291; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2012); Sherri Brown and Christopher W. Skinner, ed., Johannine Ethics: The Moral
World of the Gospel and Epistles of John (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017). Especially the
essays by Michael Labahn and Ruben Zimmermann (in the first volume) and
Christopher Skinner (in the second volume) provide a legitimate basis for doing
Johannine ethics.
5 For example, Mira Stare, ‘Der Lebensbegriff als ethische Norm im
Johannesevangelium’ in Ethische Normen des frühen Christentums: Gut–Leben–Leib–
Tugend, Friedrich W. Horn, Ulrich Volp, and Ruben Zimmermann, ed. (WUNT 313;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013): 257-80; Jörg Frey, ‘“Ethical” Traditions, Family
Ethos, and Love in the Johannine Literature’ in Early Christian Ethics in Interaction
with Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts, Jan Willem van Henten and Joseph
Verheyden, ed. (STAR 17; Leiden: Brill, 2013): 167-203; Karl Weyer-Menkhoff, Die
Ethik des Johannesevangeliums im sprachlichen Feld des Handelns (WUNT II/359;
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014); Fredrik Wagener, Figuren as Handlungsmodelle:
Simon Petrus, die samaritische Frau, Judas und Thomas als Zugänge zu einer
narrative Ethik des Johannesevangeliums (WUNT II/408; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2015); Lindsey M. Trozzo, Exploring Johannine Ethics: A Rhetorical Approach to
Moral Efficacy in the Fourth Gospel Narrative (WUNT II/449; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2017); Mavis M. Leung, ‘Ethics and Imitatio Christi in 1 John: A Jewish
Perspective’, TynB 69 (2018): 111-31 (she explains imitating Jesus in 1 John in light of
the Old Testament idea of imitating God). For an assessment of Dirk van der Merwe’s
2001 article on mimesis in John’s Gospel and Jan van der Watt’s 2016 articles on
mimesis in 1 John, see Bennema, Mimesis: 13,16-17.
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 185
these topics more explicitly.6 I will argue that when people live in
God’s world, their character and conduct are shaped by the moral
beliefs, values, and norms of God’s world (Section 2), and that mimesis
is instrumental in this process of moral transformation (Section 3).
Unaddressed previously, this study will explore how mimesis may have
worked among Johannine believers in the late first century (Section 4).

2. Moral Transformation
The Johannine writings present a narrative world where two mutually
exclusive moral realms and rulers are pitted against each other.
Immoral categories such as darkness, hate, lies, sin, and murder are
related to the devil and his realm (including its people). Moral
attributes or qualities such as life, light, love, truth, good, righteous,
pure, and holy are ascribed to God and Jesus and those who belong to
him. For John, the ultimate moral attainment for people is to participate
in the life of God and Jesus (20:31; 1 John 5:13).7 A person’s moral
transformation starts with a new birth of the Spirit, a relocation from
the dark, immoral world to the moral world of God. This new birth
involves a new identity – one becomes a child of God, part of his
family – and this new identity should lead to new behaviour.8 Believers
must now think and live in line with this new environment and their

6 I only hinted at mimesis in Cornelis Bennema, ‘Moral Transformation in the

Johannine Writings’, In die Skriflig 51.3 (2017): 1–7, here 6 (see also idem, ‘Virtue
Ethics and the Johannine Writings’, in Brown and Skinner, ed., Johannine Ethics: 261-
81, here 276-77), while in my monograph, I touched on moral transformation in a
chapter that seeks to situate mimesis in the broader field of Johannine ethics
(Bennema, Mimesis: 143-69).
7 Elsewhere I argued that John’s concept of ζωή is comparable to εὐδαιμονία (the
supreme good or moral goal) in Graeco-Roman virtue ethics (Bennema, ‘Virtue
Ethics’: 262-66). The means for obtaining a share in the divine ζωή is πιστεύειν (‘to
believe’) in Jesus (20:31; 1 John 5:13), which is a moral act according to 6:27-29.
When a crowd enquires about τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ following Jesus’ exhortation
ἐργάζεσθαι for food that leads to ζωή, Jesus explains that the singular ἔργον God
requires from them is πιστεύειν in Jesus. Hence, belief in Jesus is the proper moral
response that people should render to God; conversely, unbelief is immoral or sin
(16:9).
8 ‘Family’ (John uses the terms οἶκος and οἰκία) is a major theological category in
John. Just as ‘family’ denotes the basic social unit in ancient cultures, so the ‘family of
God’ describes the basic unit of the divine society. The nucleus of the divine family
comprises God the Father and Jesus the Son, and people can enter God’s family
through a birth of the Spirit (1:12-13; 3:5).
186 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
moral transformation will correspond to the extent that they are able to
think and behave according to the divine reality.

2.1 Sharing In and Living Out the Divine Moral Attributes

When people enter God’s family and participate in the relationship that
the Father and Son share, the moral qualities that define God begin to
shape their identity and behaviour. I will mention the most prominent
qualities.
• Life. Ζωή is the everlasting, indestructible life that the Father and
Son share and what defines them (1:4; 5:26; 14:6). Life is a moral
quality because it represents the continual existence of a moral God
and because he invites people to share in his life. As believers
partake in the shared life of the Father and Son, they themselves
become a derivative source of life for others (7:38).9
• Love. Love defines God and Jesus (3:35; 14:31; 1 John 4:8,16), and
this shared love is extended to people (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 drives God to
act morally on behalf of immoral people. Love identifies those who
belong to God’s family and this love should be discernible in the
believers’ behaviour (13:34-35; 1 John 3:16-18).
• Light. Jesus is described as the life-giving light of the world (1:4-5;
8:12; 12:46) and God is also described as light (1 John 1:5). Light is
a moral quality of the Father and Son because it is associated with
ζωή and contrasted with the immoral darkness that characterises the
world (1:4-5,9).10 This moral light is made available to people when

9 While the majority of scholars favour a ‘Christological’ interpretation of 7:37-38

(placing a comma after πρός με and a full stop after ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, so that αὐτοῦ
refers to Jesus), I contend that a full stop should be placed after πινέτω, in which case
the phrase ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ is a nominativus pendens (cf. 6:39; 8:45; 15:2; 17:2)
resumed in αὐτοῦ, so that ‘streams of living water’ will flow from within the believer.
Hence, in addition to Jesus being the primary source of life-giving water, believers
become derivative sources of life-giving water. The best case for this position remains
the one made by Juan B. Cortés, ‘Yet Another Look at John 7,37-38’, CBQ 29 (1967):
75-86.
10 The darkness that characterises 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 (ἠγάπησαν
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 187
the Logos-Light enlightens people and dispels their immoral
darkness (1:9; 12:46; 1 John 2:8). People are called ‘children of
light’ when they accept the Light (12:35-36) and their behaviour
should reflect this moral light (3:19-21; 11:9-10; 1 John 1:7; 2:10).
• Truth. ‘Truth’ is Johannine shorthand for the divine reality about
God and his world, which Jesus reveals and mediates to people
(1:14-18; 3:31-33; 8:40,45; 14:6). Truth is the defining moral
component of Jesus’ teaching because it liberates people from sin
and provides moral cleansing (8:31-32; 15:3; 17:17). People who
accept Jesus’ liberating truth then become from ‘from the truth’
(18:37; 1 John 3:19). John uses various expressions to show that this
truth will shape their behaviour: ‘to do the truth’ (3:21), ‘to testify to
the truth’ (15:27), ‘to worship in truth’ (4:23-24), ‘to be guided into
the truth’ (16:13), ‘to love in truth’ (1 John 3:18; 5:20).
In short, the moral attributes that characterise the Father and Son and
direct their actions also shape the character and conduct of believers. I
will now show that believers can only live out these moral qualities to
the extent that these have shaped their thinking and behaviour.

2.2 Moral Reasoning

Believers or members of God’s family are expected to align their
thinking to their new environment, the world above, and this new
thinking should inform their behaviour. Moral reasoning or thinking
‘from above’ is to think in line with God’s character and purposes, to
reason according to the beliefs, values, and norms of the world above.
Typically, characters in the Johannine narrative show a thinking ‘from
below’. This is unsurprising considering people are ‘from below’
(8:23,43-47). On various occasions, Jesus starts a conversation at an
earthly level, but quickly moves to a spiritual level and people are often
unable to follow. Typical examples are Nicodemus (3:2-12), the crowd
(6:25-34; 7:25-30; 12:37-40), ‘the Jews’ (6:41-59; 8:39-59; 9:39-41),
Pilate (18:36-38; 19:9-11), but also the Twelve (4:31-34), Philip (6:5-
7), and Peter (13:36-38; 18:10-11). Some characters, however, do
begin to think ‘from above’, although they struggle and often require
Jesus’ help, such as the Samaritan woman (4:10-26), the man born

τὸ σκότος) for fear that their evil deeds (πονηρὰ τὰ ἔργα) may be exposed (3:19-20; cf.
7:7).
188 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
blind (9:17-38), Martha (11:21-27), and Mary Magdalene (21:14-18),
and they function as models of moral reasoning.
So, moral reasoning corresponds to the extent to which a person
understands Jesus’ teaching about God’s world. But this is not easy.
The teaching of the Johannine Jesus is enigmatic or ambiguous because
it contains metaphors, symbolism, and irony, which are open to
misunderstanding. In 16:25, Jesus refers to his teaching as being
‘veiled’ (παροιμία), but promises to speak ‘plainly’ (παρρησία) in the
future. This refers to the time of the Spirit. According to 14:26 and
16:12-15, the Spirit will explain everything that Jesus has said in such a
way that Jesus’ words become plain. John records a few instances
where the disciples are able to grasp Jesus’ teaching after the
resurrection (2:17,22; 12:26; 16:4). This thinking ‘from above’ is most
likely the result of the Spirit’s anamnesis (14:26). Indeed, in his first
letter John describes the post-Easter reality where believers are able to
think ‘from above’ because of the Spirit (1 John 2:27). The extent to
which John and his fellow believers can think ‘from above’ is indicated
by the frequent 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). So, in the post-Easter era, the
cognitive darkness that tarnishes the world and its people (1:5,9-11) is
dissipating (1 John 2:8).
In sum, Jesus taught in ‘veiled’ language and was often
misunderstood because people failed to think ‘from above’, a
prerequisite for gaining spiritual insight into the things of God. In the
post-Easter period, the Spirit functions as a decoder, decrypting or
unlocking Jesus’ revelation, thereby enabling a thinking ‘from above’.
Moral reasoning or thinking ‘from above’ facilitates moral
transformation because it informs and shapes both thought and
behaviour according to the values and norms of the world above. 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.11 This moral shaping of character and conduct is
the topic of the next section.

11 Nico J. Grönum also argues that fostering moral deliberation is important for
behavioural change, otherwise people 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, [Link]
ve.v36i1.1413).
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 189
2.3 Moral Behaviour and Identity
Becoming part of God’s family does not only result in a new identity
but also a new mode of conduct. Believers are expected to behave in
line with the ethos of God’s world. This developing moral behaviour is
usually referred to as ‘discipleship’. Consequently, we find various
ethical imperatives in the Johannine writings to direct the believer’s
behaviour, such as to love one another, to abide in Jesus and his word,
to bear fruit, to keep his commandments, to serve one another, to lay
down one’s life for others, to testify about Jesus, and to ‘do’ the truth.
In fact, the Johannine writings stress the correlation between identity
and behaviour, which means that moral transformation is not just about
behaviour but also relates to identity.
John 8:39-47 provides a good example of the dynamics of identity
and behaviour and brings into sharp focus two mutually exclusive
families. When ‘the Jews’ claim that Abraham is their father (an issue
of identity), Jesus says that if this were the case they would
demonstrate corresponding behaviour. In other words, identity
demands matching behaviour and, conversely, behaviour reveals
identity. As it is, the behaviour of ‘the Jews’ demonstrates that they do
not belong to God’s family but to the family of the devil. This link
between identity and behaviour is also found elsewhere in John’s
Gospel. To his disciples, 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). In the parable of the vine and its
branches, Jesus asserts that abiding in him, that is being in relationship
with him (identity), warrants that they bear fruit (behaviour) (15:4-5),
and in turn their bearing fruit will reveal identity (15:8).
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
(obedient behaviour) 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 (not to commit sin) is to be
right, to be of God; to commit sin is to be of the devil (1 John 3:7-10);
190 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
(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
3:18-19); (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 (identity) is inextricably linked with, even
defined by, obedience (behaviour) (1 John 5:2-3).
A picture emerges that the believers’ inclusion in the divine identity
must precipitate transformational behaviour in that they are expected to
behave according to the divine family code. Believers should behave
like children of God because that is who they are (see also 1 John 3:1).
The believer’s 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 a believer to do what is
right. At the same time, behaviour is transformative – right behaviour
affirms and shapes one’s identity. Continuous acts of discipleship
(behaviour), such as believing, loving, following, abiding, obedience,
serving, and testifying, authenticate and shape the family bond between
the believer, God, and fellow-believers (identity). In short, there is a
reciprocal, transformative dynamic between identity and behaviour;
each has the potential to shape the other.

3. Transformation through Mimesis

In Graeco-Roman and Jewish antiquity, mimesis in relation to people
occurred mainly in the spheres of family and education where children
were expected to imitate their parents and pupils their teachers in order
to become like their role models.12 The use of personal example is
crucial in the mimetic process of learning. 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

12 Willis Peter de Boer, The Imitation of Paul: An Exegetical Study (Kampen: Kok,
1962): 6-15; David B. Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi and the Gospel Genre’, BBR 13 (2003):
1-19, here 3-10; Victor A. Copan, Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the
Imitation of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual
Direction (Colorado Springs, CO: Paternoster, 2007): 46-63.
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 191
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 [Link]; LCL 124)

We see this confirmed in John. Jesus often sets the example of moral
behaviour for his disciples to imitate. The episode that illustrates this
best is the footwashing in John 13 where Jesus exhorts his disciples to
imitate him in serving one another in loving humility: ‘For I gave you
an example (ὑπόδειγμα), that just as (καθώς) I have done to you, you
also (καί) should do’.13 Besides servanthood, Jesus provides other
examples of moral behaviour for his disciples to imitate. When Jesus
issues the well-known love command in 13:34a, verse 34b expands
verse 34a with a mimetic imperative: ‘Just as I have loved you, you
also should love one another.’ The significance is that the love
command is not given in a vacuum but is derived from a precedent. In
other words, the disciples’ love for one another is based on their
personal experience of Jesus’ love for them – they have, for example,
experienced this in the footwashing (cf. 13:1). Echoing the language of
13:15, we could say that Jesus’ love for his disciples is the ὑπόδειγμα
for their love for one another. This mimetic construction, ‘just as Jesus
did, his followers also should do’, occurs more often in John (15:10;
17:18; 20:21). In addition, John mentions other instances of the
believer–Jesus mimesis, such as to be where Jesus is (12:26; 14:3;
17:24), to be united with Jesus (and God) (17:11,21-22), to behave like
Jesus (1 John 2:6), to be like Jesus (1 John 3:2), to be right(eous) like
Jesus (1 John 3:7), and to lay down one’s life like Jesus did (1 John
3:16).14
We noted earlier that the goal of mimesis is moral transformation in
that the imitator seeks to become (gradually) like the exemplar.
Believers imitate Jesus in sacrificial service, loving one another, and so

13 Understanding Jesus’ example in terms of loving service does, of course, not

exhaust its meaning. See, for example, R. Alan Culpepper, ‘The Johannine
hypodeigma: A Reading of John 13’, Semeia 53 (1991): 133-52 (to imitate Jesus’
virtuous death); Mary L. Coloe, ‘Welcome into the Household of God: The Foot
Washing in John 13,’ CBQ 66 (2004): 400-415 (to welcome believers into God’s
family).
14 In fact, John’s mimetic language is both varied and widespread in that he uses eight

different linguistic construction to create approximately forty-four occurrences of

mimesis, with twenty-three referring to the believer–Jesus mimesis (Bennema,
Mimesis: 39-63).
192 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
on, so that they become people characterised by love and service. A
pattern of transformation through mimesis emerges where Jesus shows
an example of moral behaviour and his disciples can then (and
therefore) imitate him. I will now explain mimesis with reference to the
same three categories I used for moral transformation in Section 2.

3.1 Mimesis and the Divine Attributes

We saw earlier that the relationship between the Father and Son, in
which believers share, is characterised by the moral qualities of life,
light, love, and truth. In this section, I will suggest that believers can
share in these divine attributes because they are extended to them
through mimesis, shaping both their identity and behaviour. We can
detect a mimetic chain where the Father sets the example for the Son,
and in turn the Son sets the example for his followers. Hence, in
imitating the Father, Jesus mediates these moral commodities to
people.
• Regarding life, just as the Father has granted the Son to be a source
of life in imitation of him (5:21,26), so believers become an
auxiliary source of life in imitation of Jesus. For example, when the
Samaritan woman has drunk from the life-giving water that Jesus
offered her, she, in turn, becomes a derivative or imitative source of
life when her testimony leads her fellow villagers to the source of
life (4:28-30,39). Similarly, the disciples’ testimony will elicit belief
(17:20) precisely because they have become a derivative source of
life (7:38-39). Hence, access to 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, the mimetic chain of love is 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 (13:34; 15:12).
• Truth is the essence of divine speech (8:31-32) and since Jesus
imitates the Father’s speech (8:26,28; 12:50) Jesus’ teaching is a
source of truth for people. Believers, in turn, become a source of
truth for others because their testimony, guided by the Spirit of
truth, is modelled on Jesus’ teaching (15:26-27; 16:12-15; 17:20).
• Although there is no Son–Father mimesis regarding light, there is
arguably an implied mimesis in the depiction of John the Baptist.
Jesus’ description of John as a shining lamp in 5:35 refers to John’s
activity of testifying to the Light, which elicits belief (1:7; 1:35-37;
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 193
10:41-42). Likewise, believers are called to testify to the Light
(15:27) and their testimony has the potential to provide light
(17:20). Hence, it could be argued that believers ‘imitate’ Jesus as
light.
In sum, the core attributes that characterise the Father–Son relationship
are mediated to believers through mimesis. And if these attributes
shape the believers’ identity and behaviour, we may conclude that
mimesis is instrumental for moral transformation. I will now look at
the concepts of moral reasoning and the relation between behaviour
and character with regard to mimesis.

3.2 Mimesis and Moral Reasoning

John’s concept of mimesis is not about aping or mindless replication;
rather, it is a dynamic and creative hermeneutical process. Revisiting
the footwashing, 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 (‘Have you understood what I have done for you?’).
Γινώσκειν here has the force of ‘to understand’. Hence, Jesus’ question
constitutes a cognitive challenge for the disciples, implying that what
they have observed needs to be followed by understanding.15 They
must interpret Jesus’ example in order to imitate him. They should
grasp, for example, that their Lord and Teacher had become a δοῦλος,
showing that no one is exempt from humble service and that they need
to become δοῦλοί too. Jesus’ question in 13:12 injects a cognitive
aspect into the concept of mimesis and reveals that mimesis has two
components: (i) the interpretation of the original act; and (ii) the
resulting mimetic act. For John, mimesis is a hermeneutical process
where the disciples have to interpret Jesus’ example in order to imitate
it. Hence, the mimetic act is not limited to a replication of the original,
but can be a creative expression of that act. In washing his disciples’
feet, Jesus’ intention is that the disciples understand the need for
humble, loving service to one another and produce a tangible act that
creatively but truthfully articulates this understanding. An authentic
mimetic act must stay within the conceptual domain of the original act.
For example, showing compassion for the homeless by talking to them

15 While the first meaning of the footwashing would become clear to the disciples
after Easter (13:7), they are required to understand its second meaning immediately
(13:12b-17).
194 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
and giving them a meal falls within the conceptual mimetic domain of
the footwashing, but throwing money at them does not.
Other forms of Johannine mimesis also suggest the need for moral
discernment. For instance, to be sent into the world by Jesus just as
Jesus was sent into the world by the Father (17:18; 20:21) needs
discernment because this looks different for each believer. Moral
discernment regarding the ‘oneness’ and ‘indwelling’ of the Father and
Son (17:11,21-22) should guide how the mimesis of this union is
worked out in the corporate life of the believing community. The
mimetic actions of believers demonstrating love for one another in
different situations needs moral reasoning. In short, authentic mimesis
requires moral reasoning in that the intention and attitude behind Jesus’
example must be interpreted and articulated truthfully in a
corresponding mimetic act.
Moral reasoning may even lead to new forms of mimesis. I say this
because John himself does so in his first letter by creating several new
mimetic instances.
• 1 John [Link] ὁ λέγων ἐν αὐτῷ μένειν ὀφείλει καθὼς ἐκεῖνος
περιεπάτησεν καὶ αὐτὸς [οὕτως] περιπατεῖν (‘just as he walked, the
one who claims to abide in him must also walk [similarly]).’16
Περιπατεῖν (‘to walk’) is shorthand for ‘way of life’, referring to
Jesus’ life on earth as a model for imitation.17 This mimetic
imperative is probably derived from Jesus’ saying in 14:6 that he is
the ‘way of life’ in which people should walk (taking ἡ ὁδός … καὶ
ἡ ζωη as ‘the way that is life’).18 This general mimesis has three
manifestations in the Johannine literature: (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 reality, which is bound up with
Jesus; (iii) ‘to walk according to his commandment(s)’ (2 John 6),
that is to show conduct that is exemplified by love. In short,
believers should discern and demonstrate Christ-like behaviour that

16 Virtually everyone considers ἐκεῖνος in 1 John 2:6 and 1 John 3:3,7,16 (see below)
to refer to Jesus.
17 Connecting μένειν and περιπατεῖν, Hans-Josef Klauck contends that abiding is not

something static but a dynamic activity (Der erste Johannesbrief, [EKKNT 23.1;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991]: 118).
18 In addition, Leung sees parallels with ‘walking in the way of the Lord’ in the OT

(‘Ethics’: 125-26).
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 195
is characterised by the divine moral qualities of light, truth, and love
(cf. Section 3.1).
• 1 John [Link] ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ ἐσόμεθα (‘when he is
revealed, we will be like him’). The subject of φανερωθῇ 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). Since 2:28 mentions
παρουσία, the idea in 3:2 is that at the Parousia, believers will be
transformed into the likeness of Christ. The believers’ mimetic
transformation probably refers to becoming like Jesus in his
humanity – to become truly human.19
• 1 John [Link] καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἔχων τὴν ἐλπίδα ταύτην ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἁγνίζει
ἑαυτόν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος ἁγνός ἐστιν (‘all who have this hope in him
purify themselves, just as he is pure’). This occurrence of mimesis is
perhaps rooted in 17:19. Although the mimetic idea seems weak – it
does not say that believers must purify themselves just as Jesus
purified himself (because Jesus is pure) – it nevertheless urges
believers to imitate Jesus and become pure.
• 1 John [Link] ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην δίκαιός ἐστιν, καθὼς ἐκεῖνος
δίκαιός ἐστιν (‘the one who does what is right is right[eous], just as
he is right[eous]’). This occurrence of mimesis may be influenced
by 5:30 and 7:24.
• 1 John [Link] ἐκεῖνος ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἔθηκεν; καὶ ἡμεῖς
ὀφείλομεν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν τὰς ψυχὰς θεῖναι. John does not only
remind his audience of Jesus’ saying in 15:13 but 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. To get from the mimetic imperative to imitate Jesus’
sacrificial love in 1 John 3:16 to the specific mimetic act of giving
economic aid to a fellow believer in 1 John 3:17 certainly takes
moral reasoning.
• 1 John [Link] εἰ οὕτως ὁ θεὸς ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἡμεῖς ὀφείλομεν
ἀλλήλους ἀγαπᾶν (‘since God loved us in this manner, we also must

19 If one wants to use the term ‘theosis’ to describe this transformation, it should be
understood in terms of participation in God’s life and character in order to become like
God rather than participation in God’s essence in order to become God. See further
Andrew J. Byers, Ecclesiology and Theosis in the Gospel of John, (SNTSMS 166;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017); Michael Gorman, Abide and Go:
Missional Theosis in the Gospel of John (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2018).
196 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
love one another’). This mimetic imperative is a conflation of 3:16
and 13:34.
Hence, we have in 1 John several instances of moral reasoning where
John imitates Jesus at a meta-level by fashioning new forms of mimetic
behaviour from Jesus’ teaching and personal example.

3.3 Mimesis, Moral Behaviour, and Identity

In Section 2, we saw that when people become part of the divine realm
where God rules, the shaping of their identity and behaviour constitutes
moral transformation. In this section, I will suggest that mimesis is a
crucial mechanism for linking behaviour and identity. Regarding the
footwashing, for example, imitating Jesus the δοῦλος-κύριος (13:14,16)
would mean not just performing acts of sacrificial service but that the
disciples become δοῦλοί to one another, which implies transformation.
Authentic sacrificial service is inextricably linked to adopting a
δοῦλος-identity and, conversely, the mimetic act of serving others
affirms and shapes one’s δοῦλος-identity. In short, there is a
transformative relationship between mimetic behaviour and identity.
In other instances, too, we observe a correspondence between
mimetic behaviour and identity. For example, Jesus’ mimetic
imperative in 13:34 is not simply to direct the disciples’ 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 mimetic unity among believers (identity),
patterned on the unity of the Father and Son (17:21-22), is directly
linked to testifying about Jesus (behaviour) (17:20). Looking at the
Johannine letters, 1 John 3:7 shows that the habitual practice of doing
what is right transforms the person into being right(eous) – in imitation
of Jesus. In 1 John 3:16, the mimetic imperative that believers lay
down their lives for each other just as Jesus did speaks to believers who
have been transformed, having passed from death to life, as mentioned
in 1 John 3:14. At the same time, the regular practice of this sacrificial
love-in-action (1 John 3:17-18) would naturally affirm and enhance
their transformation (cf. 3 John 5-8). The mimetic transformation of
believers into the likeness of Christ at the Parousia in 1 John 3:2 is
unlikely to be an instant metamorphosis from one state into another and
more likely to be a gradual transformation, resulting from a lifetime of
imitating Jesus. In fact, the Johannine concept of mimesis manifests
itself in two forms: ‘performative’ mimesis, referring to the imitation of
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 197
actions or behaviour (e.g., in 13:15,34) and ‘existential’ mimesis,
referring to states of existence or ‘being’ (e.g., in 17:11,21-22; 1 John
3:2).20 Hence, for John, mimesis shapes both identity and behaviour.
We will now examine how mimesis may have worked among
Johannine believers in the late first century.

4. The Practice of Mimesis in Johannine Christianity

Our study triggers at least two hermeneutical questions regarding the
workings of mimesis (and resulting moral transformation) in Johannine
Christianity. First, how could Johannine believers in the late first
century, when John wrote his Gospel and Letters, imitate the departed
Jesus whom they are unable to observe?21 Second, what were
Johannine believers supposed to imitate about Jesus – his teachings,
character, or entire lifestyle – and could they create new forms of
mimesis, as John did in 1 John? In exploring these issues, I will
propose two hermeneutical principles that can be used heuristically to
approximate how transformative mimesis might have worked among
Johannine Christians.

4.1 The Mimesis of an ‘Absent’ Jesus22

By definition, mimesis is a sensory process, where the imitator
observes what needs imitating. The Johannine concept of mimesis
brings up an issue that seems at odds with this: how could Johannine
Christians imitate Jesus when he had returned to the Father? Did
mimesis mutate from first-hand observation to second-hand instruction
on what to imitate? Not necessarily. David Capes has argued that there
was a literary ethos in antiquity that promoted the idea of imitation. In
Graeco-Roman and Jewish Hellenistic cultures, the virtuous lives of
notable people were upheld as models for imitation, and while living
models were preferred, the lives of great men from the past could be
‘observed’ (and imitated) through spoken and published accounts.23
Capes then shows that the Gospels as ancient biographies or βιοί of

20 See also Bennema, Mimesis: 59-62.

21 Leung does not consider this crucial issue in her ‘Ethics’.
22 Jesus’ ‘absence’ refers to the spatial separation between Jesus in heaven and his

followers on earth; yet, he is ‘present’ or accessible through the Spirit (see below).
23 Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi’: 3-10. See also Copan, Saint Paul: 40-71.
198 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
Jesus provided early Christians with a script for imitation.24 John, too,
knows of living and literary examples for imitation.
The Imitation of Living Examples. Interestingly, while Paul presents
himself as an example for imitation (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17;
1 Thess. 1:6; 2 Thess. 3:7,9), John does not do so in his letters.25 In
3 John 11 (the only place in the Johannine writings where the lexeme
μιμεῖσθαι occurs), John’s exhortation to Gaius to imitate τὸ ἀγαθόν
(‘that which is good’) seems abstract and impersonal, but the latter half
of the verse ‘personalises’ the imitation: ὁ ἀγαθοποιῶν (‘the one who
does good’) probably indicates the one who imitates τὸ ἀγαθόν (‘that
which is good’). Besides, considering the immediate context (3 John 9-
12), ‘that which is evil’ and ‘that which is good’ refers to the conduct
of Diotrephes and Demetrius respectively.26 Hence, John points Gaius
to the living example of Demetrius for imitation. We could extend
John’s exhortation to believers in general, instructing them to imitate
what is good in the lives of other Christians.27
The Imitation of Literary Examples. John has recorded the life and
teachings of Jesus as he remembered and understood them in his
Gospel and Letters, so his audience can reconstruct this ‘remembered’
Jesus from the Johannine text.28 In other words, Johannine Christians
can observe, study, and imitate the ‘reconstructed’ Jesus from the text.
The fact that 1 John introduces several new instances of the believer–

24 Capes, ‘Imitatio Christi’: 13-19. Richard Burridge made the compelling case for
viewing the Gospels as ancient biographies (What Are the Gospels? A Comparison
with Graeco-Roman Biography [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004; orig. 1992])
and later explored the mimetic aspect of the Gospels as βιοί (Imitating Jesus: An
Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007]).
25 Nevertheless, John’s assertion, ‘our κοινωνία is with the Father and with the Son

Jesus Christ’ (1 John 1:3) implies that he lived out a Christ-like life before his
community (Jeffrey E. Brickle, ‘Transacting Virtue within a Disrupted Community:
The Negotiation of Ethics in the First Epistle of John’, in Rethinking the Ethics of
John: 346).
26 De Boer, Imitation: 85.
27 Paul uses the term τύπος (‘example, model [for imitation]’) regarding people who

could model the Christian life to his audience in his absence: e.g. Timothy (1 Tim.
4:12), Titus (Titus 2:7,) or Christ-like believers (Phil. 3:17b).
28 The Johannine writings assert they are based on eyewitness testimony (see the ‘we’

in 1:14; 21:24; 1 John 1:1-3; cf. 19:35). In 1 John 1:1-3, John explains that he is
communicating the divine realities he and others have observed first hand (he refers to
the senses of hearing, sight, and touch) to an audience that has not had this experience
but can ‘know’ (and experience) these realities through his written testimony. Before
John had produced his Gospel, the oral tradition about Jesus would have been the
means for a ‘visualised’ Jesus.
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 199
Jesus mimesis (1 John 2:6; 3:2,3,7,16) shows that John expects his
readers to be able to imitate Jesus. While John knows of the Spirit
mediating the presence of Jesus (and the Father) to believers (14:16-
17,23; 1 John 3:24; 4:13), he can hardly be suggesting a scenario where
the Spirit visibly shows what believers must imitate. Instead, John
preserves Jesus’ personal example in his writings, and draws attention
to Spirit-enabled remembrance and interpretation (14:26; 16:12-15).
The Spirit’s role is to enable the remembrance of Jesus and guide
Johannine believers in ‘visualising’ a reconstructed Jesus from the text
to aid their imitation of him. The Johannine text thus functions as the
basis for mimesis in that readers can ‘observe’ the example of Jesus in
the text and construct a literary or ‘symbolic’ Jesus to imitate.
In addition to Jesus, other characters in the Johannine narrative can
also function as models for imitation. The Johannine characters are
potential moral agents in that they can be role models for moral
reasoning and behaviour, thus effecting moral transformation.29 The
character of Thomas in John 20 has a special role in that he
conceptually facilitates the transition from living to literary examples.
Thomas’s experience in 20:24-29 represents the struggle of later
generations of believers who have not witnessed the resurrection of
Jesus and must depend on the testimony of others to believe. Yet, such
believers are not at a disadvantage; they can have a tangible experience
of the risen Jesus through oral and written testimony.30
In sum, Jesus’ ‘absence’ was not an insurmountable problem
because mimesis could be conveyed in antiquity by means of living or
literary examples. While John occasionally uses living examples
(exemplary Christians) to encourage the imitatio Christi among the
believing community, the primary basis for mimesis is his written
eyewitness testimony about Jesus. Johannine Christians can reconstruct
the Jesus that John personally observed, remembered, and preserved in
his writings. John’s portrayal of Thomas shows that we need not
distinguish between the historical disciples and later generations of
believers. Whatever the original disciples had observed and

29 For several case studies, see Bennema, ‘Virtue Ethics’: 277-78; idem, ‘Virtue
Ethics in the Gospel of John: The Johannine Characters as Moral Agents’ in
Rediscovering John: Essays on the Fourth Gospel in Honor of Frédéric Manns, L.
Daniel Chrupcała, ed. (Milan: Edizioni Terra Santa, 2013): 167-81, here 174-79.
30 See Cornelis Bennema, Encountering Jesus: Character Studies in the Gospel of

John (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014): 293-94.

200 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
remembered about Jesus’ life and teaching is accessible to later
believers as they hear or read the Johannine accounts, aided by the
Spirit who interprets Jesus’ teaching.

4.2 The Content or Focus of Mimesis

Considering the Johannine text is a basis for mimesis, what aspects of
Jesus should Johannine Christians imitate? Should they imitate specific
actions, the intentions behind those actions (resulting in a general
mindset of moral discernment), or Jesus’ entire lifestyle? Andrew Kille
suggests that the issue is not what people should imitate from the
accounts of Jesus’ life but what values they can learn from Jesus’ way
of living.31 Similarly, Phillipe Nicolet argues that the imitation of
Christ (through the imitation of Paul) does not imply that Christ is a
model to be imitated but refers to living one’s life ‘in Christ’.32 While
these scholars are being careful not to depict mimesis as aping or
mindless replication of Jesus’ actions, and recognise the need to
discern the underlying intentions and attitudes, I contend that we
should not dichotomise Jesus’ specific actions and his intentions. I
have suggested that the believers’ mimetic actions should fall in the
conceptual mimetic domain of the original act (Section 3.2). Burridge
adopts a broad stance on imitating Jesus: ‘People have to emulate his
[Jesus’] open pastoral acceptance of others, especially those whom
some may consider to be “sinners”.’33 In my view, however, such a
concept of imitation is too broad and insufficiently controlled by the
Johannine text. I propose a hermeneutical control in the mimetic
process where we ‘observe’ and imitate those aspects of Jesus’ life that
are indicated by the Johannine text.
While it is valid to imitate Jesus’ specific actions, general mindset,
or entire lifestyle, I suggest we need to hold these together. The
footwashing, for example, provides a concrete example of mimesis;
yet, the mimetic act should also embody the intention and attitude

31 D. Andrew Kille, ‘Imitating Christ: Jesus as Model in Cognitive Learning Theory’

in Text and Community: Essays in Memory of Bruce M. Metzger, J. Harold Ellens, ed.
(Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2007): 251-63.
32 Phillipe Nicolet, ‘Le Concept d’imitation de l’apôtre dans la correspondance

paulinienne’ in Paul, une théologie en construction, Andreas Dettwiler, Jean-Daniel

Kaestli, and Daniel Marguerat, ed., (Le Monde de la Bible 51; Geneva: Labor et Fides,
2004): 393-415, here 412-13.
33 Burridge, Imitating Jesus: 77. He then sees this pattern in John’s Gospel (Imitating

Jesus: 343-45).
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 201
underlying the original example. John’s exhortation that believers
conduct themselves like Jesus (1 John 2:6) contains no explicit
instructions precisely because this will require them to reflect on Jesus’
entire life and contemplate how they can imitate him.34 While people
cannot imitate every aspect of Jesus’ life, such as dying on the cross for
the sake of humanity, John nevertheless takes Jesus’ saying in 15:13 to
mean that Jesus’ sacrificial love becomes an example for imitation (1
John 3:16; cf. the remark in 21:18-19 that Peter will imitate Jesus in
death). What believers should embody are Jesus’ teachings or lived-out
ethos of God’s world, preserved in the Johannine text.
We noted that John did not limit himself to the explicit mimetic
examples that Jesus had set during his ministry; rather, he extrapolated
new forms of mimesis from the teachings and examples of Jesus. This
suggests that Johannine Christians (and later believers) can also extend
an action or saying of Jesus into a mimetic imperative – ’Just as Jesus
did, so also should we.’ Indeed, when we glance further along the
Johannine tradition, into the time of the Apostolic Fathers, we find
examples of mimesis that are arguably rooted in Jesus’ teaching. In the
second century, the idea of martyrdom as the ideal imitatio Christi
became prevalent (e.g. Ign. Rom. 6:1-3; Mart. Pol. 17:3; 19:1).35 If
Ignatius and Polycarp were familiar with the Johannine tradition,36 the
imitation of Jesus’ death could be traced back via John’s newly-created
mimetic imperative in 1 John 3:16 to Jesus’ saying in John 15:13.

4.3 Applied Hermeneutics

Based on the previous discussion, I suggest two hermeneutical
principles. First, the Johannine text is the basis and boundary for
mimesis. Jesus’ instruction to abide in his words (15:7; cf. 14:23;
15:10) requires us not only to contemplate, study, and observe them but

34 Although we noted in Section 3.2 that John portrays this Christ-like behaviour as
one characterised by light, truth, and love, this must be unpacked through moral
reasoning.
35 See de Boer, Imitation: 15; Paul Middleton, Radical Martyrdom and Cosmic

Conflict in Early Christianity (LNTS 307; London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2006):
82-84 (he also mentions several parallels between the deaths of Jesus and Polycarp).
36 Kenneth Berding, ‘John or Paul? Who Was Polycarp’s Mentor?’, TynB 58 (2007):

135-43; Helmut Löhr, ‘The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch’ in The Apostolic Fathers,
Wilhelm Pratscher, ed. (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2010): 91-115, here 101-102;
Murray J. Smith, ‘The Gospels in Early Christian Literature’ in The Content and
Setting of the Gospel Tradition, Mark Harding and Alanna Nobbs, ed. (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2010): 204.
202 TYNDALE BULLETIN 69.2 (2018)
also to remain within their boundaries (see 2 John 9). At first glance,
John’s new forms of mimesis in 1 John seem to contravene the
principle just stated, but a closer look shows that these new forms of
mimesis are extrapolated from and remain within the boundaries of
Jesus’ teaching (see Section 3.2). Second, the assistance of the Spirit as
an interpretative agent is another hermeneutical principle. The
Johannine writings depict the Spirit as having an interpretative role
(14:26; 16:12-15; 1 John 2:20,27; 2 John 9), present to aid believers in
reconstructing Jesus from the text. Hence, the two interrelated
hermeneutical devices available to believers for imitating Jesus are the
text and the Spirit. Jesus (and his exemplary behaviour) is preserved in
the text and readers must, guided by the Spirit, reconstruct ‘observable
behaviour’ from the text. The Spirit aids believers in (i) reconstructing
Jesus from the text; (ii) interpreting Jesus’ example and enabling
mimesis; (iii) inferring new forms of mimesis from Jesus’ teaching.
This Spirit-led moral reasoning and mimetic behaviour effects moral
transformation.37
Glen Lund is one of few scholars who consider how Jesus may have
functioned as an ethical model within the believing community:
For all their nobility and wide-ranging application the ethical principles
of the fourth gospel certainly lack specificity. Other than in the foot-
washing ceremony, none of Jesus’ commands are fleshed out by detailed
instructions indicating how they might be practically applied. Each
command ultimately refers to the example of Jesus as the basis of their
application which is a dynamic tradition that is neither fixed nor
systematic. The ultimate test for Johannine moral acceptability could
perhaps be described as intimate connection to Jesus/God through belief
and faithfulness to his testimony within the Spirit-guided community.
In practice, the moral conduct in the Johannine community would not
have been governed by the fourth gospel but would have been fleshed
out by their corporate memory of Jesus and supplemented by
remembered, internalised values from the Torah … This would mean

37 In a recent study based on cognitive psychology, Joshua Cockayne recognises the

transformative aspect of mimesis but argues that this requires an experience of Christ
in the present, through the indwelling Spirit, in which the imitator can perceive
Christ’s intentions and behaviour (‘The Imitation Game: Becoming Imitators of
Christ’, RS 53 [2017]: 3-24). My concern is that mimesis rooted in the contemporary
experience of Christ could lead to uncontrolled, subjective interpretations, whereas I
suggest that the imitation of Jesus should be text centred, i.e., controlled by Jesus’
examples and behaviour preserved in the text. Hermeneutically, the ‘contemporary’
Jesus of personal experience should correspond to the ‘reconstructed’ Jesus from the
text.
BENNEMA: Mimesis in the Johannine Tradition 203
that Johannine ethical practice would be based on relational unity and
communal values, not written texts and fixed laws.38

There is much to commend in Lund’s view of a Torah-based, Spirit-

guided community ethics, but it does not, in my view, go to the heart of
Johannine ethics. Rather, the personal example of Jesus, preserved in
the text of John’s Gospel and extrapolated in his Letters, is central to
Johannine ethics.39

5. Conclusion
When people enter God’s world, their participation in the divine
commodities such as life, light, love, and truth effects moral
transformation. Believers will be transformed to the extent that they
practise moral reasoning and behave in accordance to the ethos of
God’s world. The concept of mimesis turns out to be instrumental in
this process of moral transformation. We argued that mimesis was not
limited to the original disciples who were able to observe Jesus. Later
generations of believers could ‘observe’ Jesus in the Gospel’s
eyewitness account and in John’s Letters, where he crafts further
examples of mimesis. Indeed, the possible reception history of the
Johannine tradition in the second century shows that martyrdom as the
ideal imitatio Christi can be traced back via John (in 1 John) to Jesus
(in John’s Gospel). The main hermeneutical aids to guide the believer’s
imitation of Jesus are the text and the Spirit, although mature believers
could also function as living examples for imitation.

38 Glen Lund, ‘The Joys and Dangers of Ethics in John’s Gospel’ in Rethinking the
Ethics of John: 278, 280. For the idea of intimate relationships enabling ethical living,
see Volker Rabens’ essay in the same volume (‘Johannine Perspectives on Ethical
Enabling in the Context of Stoic and Philonic Ethics’: 114-39).
39 For a detailed discussion, see Bennema, Mimesis: 165-68. Even though Lund

mentions the idea of imitating Jesus, he does not make it sufficiently central to
Johannine ethics (‘Joys’: 277, 283, 287-88).