Imitation in Johannine Christianity

1. Introduction

Imitation is central to human life. Aristotle observed that ‘from childhood, it is natural for humans to imitate, and in this humans differ from other living beings that they are most able of imitation and do their first learning through imitation’ (Poetics 1448b.5). We are social beings, innately wired to imitate. Positively, children grow up imitating their parents, teachers and other role models; and adults develop in their thinking and behaviour by imitating others. Negatively, we tend to reject forms of imitation such as counterfeit goods, forged documents or plagiarized research. In Christianity, the imitation of Christ has been studied by theologians more than biblical scholars and is more fashionable in pietist than in academic circles. The 15th-century book The Imitation of Christ by Thomas à Kempis is arguably the most popular devotional work apart from the Bible. The 19th-century Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard even asserted that ‘only the imitator is the true Christian’. ¹ Some sections of the church, such as the Reformed tradition, are critical of the concept of imitating Jesus because they consider this an infringement on the uniqueness of Christ. ² In my view, however, the imitation and uniqueness of Christ are not in conflict. ³ We cannot address all these issues, so the modest aim of this study is to explore imitation as an ethical concept in the Johannine tradition—how John envisages imitation will shape people’s behaviour and character. ⁴

Johannine ethics has been an awkward topic for scholarship since John does not deal with moral issues such as divorce, purity or sexual immorality. Technically, there is no ethics in John because there is no set 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 questions. It is therefore unsurprising that most scholars have ignored John when it comes to ethics. There was a turning point in 2012, when the first volume on Johannine ethics appeared. ⁵ It made an effective case for Johannine ethics and since then studies on ethics in John have flourished. ⁶ Nevertheless, while Johannine ethics is back in fashion as it were, the recent boom has not produced any significant studies on Johannine imitation.

A few scholars have looked at imitation in John but mostly in a cursory manner. In 2001, Dirk van der Merwe wrote an article on imitation in John’s Gospel but inadequately anchored the concept in concrete Johannine words. ⁷ In 2007, Richard Burridge’s book Imitating Jesus came with a chapter on John’s Gospel. It looked promising but underdelivered because it employed too general a notion of imitation, namely that we should imitate Jesus’s open attitude to others. ⁸ Jan van der Watt wrote a helpful article in 2016—but only on imitation in 1 John. ⁹ In 2018, Mavis Leung also looked at imitation in 1 John but her attempt to root Johannine imitation in the alleged Old Testament idea of imitating God is unconvincing (see also Section 2). ¹⁰ While Lindsey Trozzo notes the concept of imitation in John’s Gospel, she does not consider it central to John’s ethics. ¹¹ In contrast, I have argued, in the first detailed study on the subject, that the concept of imitation is central to Johannine ethics. ¹² In this study, I will draw on my findings and extend them to the second century, to follow a tradition of imitation from Jesus in the early first century to Johannine Christians in the late first century to early Christian martyrs in the second century. First, however, we will briefly look at the concept of imitation in antiquity.

2. Imitation in Antiquity

In ancient Greek culture, imitation originally referred to the creative and orderly representation of nature through the fine arts (dance, painting, sculpture, poetry), but over time the concept of imitation extended to other areas of life. In religion, people’s goal was to imitate god or the gods. Plato writes, for example, ‘We should try to flee from earth to heaven as quickly as possible; and to flee is to become like God, as much as is possible; and to become like God is to become righteous, pure and wise’ (Theaetetus 176ab). In the family and in education, children were expected to imitate their parents and teachers in order to become like these role models. For example, Euripides, a Greek playwright in the fifth century BC, records the appeal of a father to his daughter: ‘Grant me this favour and imitate the character of a just father; for this is the best praise for children, that the child of a good father becomes similar in character as its parents’ (Helen 939–943). These Greek concepts of imitation continued in Roman culture. First-century Roman rhetorician Quintilian, for instance, stresses the importance of imitation in education:

And it is a universal rule of life that we should wish to copy what we approve in others. It is for this reason that boys copy the shapes of letters that they may learn to write, and that musicians take the voices of their teachers, painters the works of their predecessors, and peasants the principles of agriculture which have been proved in practice, as models for their imitation. In fact, we may note that the elementary study of every branch of learning is directed by reference to some definite standard that is placed before the learner. (Institutio Oratoria 10.2.2) ¹³

So, the ancient Graeco-Roman world knew about imitating others—whether god, parent or teacher. It is important to note that for the ancient Greeks and Romans, imitation was not so much about complete likeness or exact reproduction but more about creative, corresponding representation.

In the Hebrew bible or Old Testament, there are traces of imitation but the idea is certainly not developed. We can think of texts such as Genesis 1:26, where humankind is created in the image of God (but the idea may be one of representation); Leviticus 19:2, where God commands the Israelites to be holy because he is holy (but the connection is causal rather than comparative); and Deuteronomy 10:17–19, saying that the Israelites should love the stranger just as or because God looks after the stranger, orphan and widow. More generally, Israel is often urged ‘to walk in the way of the Lord’ and ‘to follow after God’, but this refers to obedience rather than imitation. ¹⁴ Hence, it would be presumptuous to claim that the Old Testament speaks of imitating God; instead, the Old Testament seems to contain seeds of imitation. When Greek culture had prolonged contact with Jewish thought (a process called Hellenization), these seeds came to fruition. Consequently, when we come to early Christianity, the Graeco-Roman concept of imitation seems to have found its way into the New Testament—albeit mainly in Paul. ¹⁵

3. Recognizing Johannine Imitation

In the New Testament, imitation is almost exclusively an ethical concept that relates to the behaviour of Christians in relation to God and fellow Christians. Imitation as an ethical concept is the means to moral development. The goal of imitating Jesus is for a person to become more Christ-like. We can call this form of ethics ‘imitation ethics’, referring to people’s moral behaviour and character shaped by imitation. This study uses the following working definition of imitation in John: a believer represents or emulates Jesus (or sometimes God) in a particular action or state of existence in order to become like him; more concisely, to imitate Jesus is to behave and become like him.

The literal term for imitation occurs only once in the Johannine tradition—in 3 John 11—as a general command, ‘Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good’. I will return to this verse later but for now we can say that if there is a concept of imitation in the Johannine writings, John uses different language to express it. Here is what I suggest we look for. Imitation supposes a resemblance between the person who sets an example and the one who emulates it, so we could consider so-called comparative language—words such as ‘like’, ‘likewise’, ‘as’, ‘just as’, and ‘similarly’.

Comparative language, however, can also indicate analogy, so here are some examples of what is not imitation. First, a comparison between ideas or objects is not imitation in a New Testament sense. In John 3:8, for example, the work of the Spirit is likened to the blowing of the wind. The Spirit does not imitate the wind; rather, the effect of the Spirit is explained by a comparison to the effects of the wind. Second, a person telling someone what to do is not imitation either. Jesus telling his disciples that they should love one another (13:34a) does not constitute imitation; but to say, ‘just as I have loved you, you also should love one another’ (13:34b) does because Jesus refers to an example that can be observed and imitated. Third, a person acting similarly to different persons is also not imitation. For example, John 5:23 says, ‘so that all may honour the Son just as they honour the Father’. Here people are expected to behave in a similar manner towards Jesus as they do towards God but there is no imitation. Fourth, reciprocity is not imitation. Jesus’s saying in John 15:4, ‘Abide in me as I abide in you’, denotes mutuality or exchange but not imitation.

Now we turn to what does count as imitation in John. In John’s Gospel, the most frequent construction that indicates imitation is this: ‘just as I [Jesus] did, you [disciples] also should do’. John 13 has two examples of this: regarding the footwashing, Jesus said, ‘For I gave you an example, that just as I did to you, you also should do’ (13:15) and a little later, ‘Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another’ (13:34b). These follow the formula ‘just as I did, you also should do’. ¹⁶ We will now look at some examples of imitation in John’s Gospel to understand this better.

4. Understanding Johannine Imitation

Jesus often sets the example of ethical living for the disciples to imitate. The passage that shows this best is the footwashing in John 13, so I will pay most attention to it.

The Footwashing. John 13:1–17 is ideal for understanding imitation in John because (i) it contains Jesus’s first explicit imitative imperative to the disciples (13:15), and (ii) the pericope in which this imperative is embedded (13:1–17), describes the various workings of imitation. The footwashing pericope has two sections, each expressing a different but related meaning: in 13:1–11 Jesus alludes to the disciples’ (spiritual) purification that he will finalize for them on the cross (soteriology), while in 13:12–17 Jesus explains the footwashing as humble, loving service that needs regular repetition (ethics). I will concentrate on 13:4–5, 12–17, the important part for the notion of imitation.

John 13:4–5 and 12a bookend the physical act of footwashing. Three consecutive verbs describe Jesus’s actions at the start (he stands up from the table, removes his garment and washes his disciples’ feet) and in reverse order at the end (having washed his disciples’ feet, he puts on his garment and reclines again at the table). There is a strong suggestion that one can only imitate what one observes. Instead of telling the disciples that they should wash one another’s feet, Jesus shows what needs imitation. Jesus then issues the command to imitate him, ‘For I gave you an example, that just as I did to you, you also should do’ (13:15). The example that he refers to, of course, is the footwashing—the visible model for imitation.

Johannine scholars disagree on whether the command in 13:15 calls for a literal replication of the footwashing or is a broad call to humble, loving service. Most scholars hold the latter view but rarely explain why Jesus would not have intended the literal washing of feet. An important clue is to note that authentic imitation requires understanding. When Jesus goes back to the table after the footwashing he does not immediately tell the disciples to imitate his example. Instead, he asks in 13:12b, ‘Do you know what I have done to you?’ The verb ‘to know’, here, means ‘to understand’—Jesus questions the disciples to see whether they have understood what he did for them. So, the disciples must interpret Jesus’s example in order to imitate him. This implies that imitation cannot be a mindless cloning or simplistic replication. Instead, imitation requires two stages—the understanding of the original example and the resulting imitative act.

It follows that, for John, imitation is a hermeneutical process where the believer has to interpret Jesus’s example in order to imitate it. I call this ‘moral reasoning’, that is, thinking in line with God’s character, values and norms. Consequently, the imitator must understand the intent of the original act and articulate this understanding in a corresponding imitative act. While this does not preclude the literal practice of footwashing as an expression of humble, loving service, it does not exhaust the scope of what Jesus meant. The intention behind Jesus’s actions here is that the disciples understand the need for humble, loving service to one another and produce a concrete act that faithfully expresses this understanding.

In 13:13–14, 16, Jesus gives the motivation for the command in 13:15. A threefold argument from the greater to the lesser clarifies why the disciples are not excused from imitating Jesus: what the one of higher status (Lord, Teacher, Sender) has done, those of lower status (disciples, slaves, messengers) must also do. The offence of the footwashing has to do with the radical overturning of status and role: Jesus, the Lord and Teacher, identifies and acts as a slave. This implies that the disciples’ imitation cannot simply be the performance of an act of service but must involve participation in Jesus’s slave-identity and becoming slaves to one another. Jesus then says, ‘If you understand these things, you are blessed if you do them’ (13:17), where the term ‘blessed’ or ‘happy’ refers to God’s favour bestowed on the imitator. But in what way? I suggest that in adopting a servant-attitude and performing acts of humble, loving service in imitation of Jesus, the imitator will gradually become more like Jesus.

The Love Command. In 13:34 Jesus states the famous love command: ‘I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another’ (see also 15:12). While the first part of 13:34 states the love command, the second half explains it as a command of imitation. The significance is that the love command is not given in a vacuum but proceeds from a precedent. In other words, the disciples’ love for one another is based on their personal experience of Jesus’s love for them—as they have, for example, experienced in the footwashing (see also 13:1). This means that Jesus’s love for the disciples is the empowering model for their love for one another. Imitation thus springs from a relationship with Jesus where believers have observed and experienced Jesus’s love for themselves, which in turn, empowers them to love others. How imitating Jesus’s love to one another will look in different situations, requires moral reasoning, just as we saw in the footwashing.

Other Examples of the Believer–Jesus Imitation. While the footwashing and the love command are the most obvious ethical imperatives, and both are actualized through imitation, there are other areas of the believer–Jesus imitation:

It appears that a pattern emerges where Jesus regularly sets the example that the disciples can then, and therefore, imitate. Johannine ethics is thus primarily imitation ethics in that imitation is central to John’s ethical thought. Believers imitate Jesus in serving one another, loving one another, being united with one another, and so on, so that they may become people characterized by service, love and unity—in short, to become more like Jesus. So, when John writes in 1 John 3:2 that ‘when he [Jesus] is revealed [at the Parousia], we will be like him, for we will see him as he is’, this transformation into the likeness of Christ at his Second Coming will be the completion of a process for those who have sought to imitate Jesus during their lifetime.

The Son–Father imitation. Jesus’s method of teaching by example originated from his Father. In 5:19–20, Jesus says that he does nothing by himself but only what he sees the Father do. Other passages mention specific activities where Jesus imitates the Father, such as to give life (5:21, 26), speak (12:49–50; see also 8:26; 15:15), love (15:9) and send (17:18; 20:21). ¹⁷ The point is that the Son does not act independently or on his own initiative; rather, the Father provides the example for the Son to follow. Hence, the Son carries out the Father’s work on earth through imitation, thus being the visible and audible manifestation of the Father. In imitating the Father, the Son unveils the heavenly realm and reveals the Father so people can ‘observe’ and experience God for themselves (1:18, 51; 14:9). Jesus thus represents on earth the invisible God by means of imitation. Evidently, there is a chain of imitation: the Father sets the example for the Son, and the Son sets the example for his followers.

5. How Does John’s Imitation Ethics Work—Then and Now?

We need to address two more questions. First, how do Christians imitate an ‘absent’ Jesus? When John wrote his Gospel and Letters in the late first century, Jesus was long gone, so how could Johannine Christians imitate a Jesus whom they could not observe? Second, is imitation limited to the examples Jesus gave in his own life? To answer these questions, we will turn to the Johannine Letters.

Imitating an ‘Absent’ Jesus. By ‘Jesus’s absence’ I mean the spatial separation between Jesus in heaven and his followers on earth; though, he is of course ‘present’ by the Spirit. I draw attention to a study by David Capes, in which he shows that in antiquity, the 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 also be ‘observed’ (and imitated) through spoken and published accounts. Capes then explains how the Gospels as ancient biographies of Jesus provided early Christians with a script for imitation. ¹⁸ When we look at John’s writings, they reveal that he did know of living and literary examples for imitation:

Content of Imitation. The answer to the second question, ‘Is imitation limited to the examples Jesus gave in his life?’, is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. ‘Yes’, in that Jesus’s example preserved in the text remains the basis and boundary for our imitation of Christ. Jesus’s instruction to abide in his words (John 15:4) requires us not only to study and observe them but also to remain within their boundaries. Likewise, in 2 John 9, John warns his audience not to go beyond the teaching of Christ. But the answer is also ‘no’, in that John himself applied moral reasoning and created new forms of imitation by extending Jesus’s example and teaching. Here are some examples:

In sum, 1 John contains several instances of moral reasoning where John develops new forms of imitative behaviour from Jesus’s teaching and personal example. By extending this dynamic, perhaps we too can create new forms of imitation—as long as they are rooted in Jesus’s example and teaching rather than in a person’s subjective imagination, disconnected from the biblical text.

We can even follow (part of) the Johannine tradition into the second century. In the time of the Apostolic Fathers, martyrdom was viewed as the ideal imitation of Christ. For example, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, writes in his Letter to the Romans:

6:1 All the pleasures of the world, and all the kingdoms of this earth, shall profit me nothing. It is better for me to die in behalf of Jesus Christ, than to reign over all the ends of the earth. . . . ² Pardon me, brethren: do not hinder me from living, do not wish to keep me in a state of death; and while I desire to belong to God, do not ye give me over to the world. Suffer me to obtain pure light: when I have gone thither, I shall indeed be a man of God. ³ Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.

The Martyrdom of Polycarp narrates the death of Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, around AD 155, stating that ‘he [Polycarp] was not merely an illustrious teacher, but also a pre-eminent martyr, whose martyrdom all desire to imitate, as having been altogether consistent with the Gospel of Christ’ (19:1). In fact, all martyrs are depicted as imitators of Christ: ‘the martyrs, as disciples and imitators of the Lord, we worthily love on account of their extraordinary affection towards their own King and Master, of whom may we also be made companions and fellow-disciples’ (17:3). Although it is not certain, a good case can be made that Ignatius and Polycarp had connections with the apostle John. ²² In which case, the imitation of Jesus’s death in the Apostolic Fathers can be traced back via John’s newly-created imitative command in 1 John 3:16 to Jesus’s own saying in John 15:13.

To sum up, Jesus’s physical absence was not an impossible problem for early Christians because imitation could be expressed 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 imitation is his written eyewitness testimony about Jesus (cf. the ‘we’ in John 1:14; 21:24; 1 John 1:1–3). Christians can reconstruct and imitate the Jesus that John had personally observed, remembered and preserved in his writings. The Johannine text, therefore, is the basis and boundary for imitation. John’s new forms of imitation in 1 John do not contradict this principle because they are extrapolated from and remain within the boundaries of Jesus’s teaching. The plausible 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).

6. Conclusion

We have examined the concept of imitation in Johannine Christianity and traced a tradition of imitation from the Johannine Jesus in the early first century to Johannine Christians in the late first century to early Christian martyrs in the second century. Scholars have shown that the concept of imitation has changed little from Greek antiquity to today, ²³ so by implication we can situate John’s concept of imitation on that trajectory and extend it to today. I mention three such extensions. First, authentic imitation involves creativity and the intellect. For John, imitation is not a mindless cloning or simplistic repetition but requires moral reasoning. One must observe, interpret and re-contextualize Jesus’s original example. Most of us would agree that tossing money to a beggar on the street is not the kind of imitation Jesus had in mind, whereas talking to them and/or giving them some assistance is more on target. There is perhaps scope to create new forms of imitation, as long as these are rooted in the example and teaching of Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Second, authentic imitation mediates Jesus. There must be a close correspondence between the believer’s imitative act and Jesus’s original act. So much so, I suggest that the believer’s imitation becomes a means through which the recipient can experience Jesus for themselves. This also explains John 13:20 at the end of the footwashing episode, where Jesus says, ‘whoever receives one whom I send, receives me’. The idea that a person could experience Jesus through the believer’s imitation might seem bizarre, but this was the testimony of the dying on the streets of Calcutta about Mother Teresa. Third, authentic imitation is other-oriented. Jesus imitated the Father in order to mediate life, love and God’s revelation to humanity. In addition, Jesus’s aim of being an exemplar for his followers is to transform their character and conduct, so that they become like him. Personal example is a great motivator for character formation, and while Jesus remains the primary role model, we can function as role models for others. Whether as parents for our children, as teachers for our students, or as ministers for our congregations, we are potential role models for transformation. Ultimately, we should imitate Jesus not for our sake but for the sake of others!