Let us talk perspective for a moment. One of the things I kept looking for in this book is a discussion of eschatology and how it affects the discussion of ethics. For example, when Paul talks about being conformed to the image of Christ, he does not imagine this process could possibly be completed before one is raised from the dead and receives a resurrection body like that of Christs. (see e.g. Rom. 8) and furthermore, he does not see himself as having been fully conformed to Christ’s image as Phil. 3.10-12 says, but he is pressing on wanting to fully know, even in a bodily sense the power of Christ’s resurrection. Especially because eschatology so affected Paul’s discussion of so many things, it needed to be discussed when the subject of mimesis comes up. After all, Paul thinks the ‘schema’ of this world is already being transformed, and he conjures with the possibility that Christ could return from heaven sooner, rather than later, though he can conceive of it going either way in regard to whether he would live to see it or not. Notice the language in 2 Cor. 7 where Paul says that the Christ event, which has already transpired, has ‘shortened’ the time necessary before Christ returns (N.B. it does not say ‘the time is short’. He is talking about the effect of the already transpired eschatological events caused by the first coming of Christ).
I appreciate Cornelius’s frankness that the actual use of imitation language in the NT, and other relevant cognate terms, is not vast, even in the Pauline and Johannine corpus. It is however significant enough and important enough that it deserves the thorough treatment Bennema gives it. Some of the most interesting part of the discussion is when he deals with whether we are talking about imitating the historical Jesus, or the exalted Christ or both. In that sort of discussion Phil. 2.5-11 becomes a crucial text, and Bennema rightly recognizes that in various ways Jesus, and his follower Paul were advocating a counter cultural ethic for all followers of Christ from the most elite to the least, the last, and the lost— all were to model themselves on the behavior of Christ as seen in texts like John 13 or Phil. 2.5-11, which entailed humility and stooping down and serving others, even after the fashion of a slave washing someone’s feet, something that was no part of Greco-Roman ethics for those who were not actual slaves. On the other hand, Paul’s call for the Corinthians to imitate him as he imitates Christ falls right in line with the Greco-Roman practice of having students imitate the behavior (and teachings) of their teachers, and children doing the same with their parents. Bennema is absolutely right that the ethic Jesus and Paul are advocating is an in house, family ethic– it is for followers of Christ, and not meant to be imposed on a pagan world without their first being born again or being new creatures in Christ.
But this brings us to the discussion of theosis. On p. 302 we have the following qualification of the term theosis: “I do not object to using the term ‘theosis’, ‘Christosis’ or ‘deification’ for the believer’s transformation as long as this refers to participation in Christ’s or God’s life and character in order to become like Christ or God (homoiusious) rather than participating in their essence in order to become God (homousios).” If this sounds all too much like the debate about the Son’s relationship with the Father at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. your alarm bells are rightly ringing. Elsewhere Cornelius clearly states that he doesn’t want to eliminate the fundamental creator/creature distinction in his discussion about imitation, but as the book progresses we get closer and closer to that outcome it seems to me. Why for example, if it is indeed the humanity of Christ that we are imitating and the ethics he both modeled and taught whilst on earth aren’t we talking about, to coin a neologism– anthroposis, the imitation of the perfect humanity of Christ?
But there is another problem with this whole topic, namely the way Christians are being conformed to the image of Christ is mainly through the work of the Holy Spirit within the believer, not mainly through ‘imitating’ or theosis. Let’s put the emphasis in the right place– it is the Spirit who is sanctifying the believer over time, and making us not merely new creatures in Christ, but in due course hopefully mature Christians manifesting the values and virtues and teachings and humanity of Christ. Phil. 2.5-11 says absolutely nothing about ‘theosis’ in so far as we are talking about Christ’s being God. He simply was a part of the divine identity as the pre-existent Son. We are supposed to have the same mindset as the pre-existent Christ, orientated to be servants of others, and leave the glorifying to God (and by the way Phil. 2.5-11 is not about Christ being like Adam, who did not pre-exist, nor did he take on the form of a servant, nor was he obedient as Christ was even unto death on the cross). What Philippians does say is that we, a collective we, are to work out our salvation as God works in the midst of the congregation and within the individual to be able to will and do what God commands and wants us to be and do. Yes, we play a role in our own sanctification, and ‘imitation’ of Christ or various godly Christian exemplars is an important part of that.
Without question both Christ and Paul played the roles of exemplars for their followers– they did not return abuse with more abuse, they did not return physical acts of violence with physical acts. What they did do was provide a robust work ethic, including even taking on menial tasks to set a good example to their followers. And of course their devotion to God was a constant example for their disciples to follow.
One of the things that becomes confusing in this whole mimesis discussion is how to draw a distinction between analogies (‘your devotion to God is like a constant source of joy to you and others’) and following (take up your cross daily and follow me– presumably being willing to suffer, or even die for one’s loyalty to Christ and his Gospel), and finally imitation. These three things are not simply synonyms, and Bennema tries to help us see the distinction. For instance he rightly reminds us that he is not talking about just any sort of mimesis, but rather only ethical mimesis and “the aim of ethical mimesis is moral transformation (the imitator seeks to become like the exemplar)”. p. 22.
The point is not to set up a reciprocity cycle like those that existed in the Greco-Roman world especially between patrons and clients, although that reciprocity happens when God loves us, and we love God. But the emphasis is on responding to God’s grace with gratitude and service. Salvation is by grace and through faith, but it also involves the believers role in their own sanctification. This is because salvation has three tenses in the NT– I have been saved (justification and the new birth), I am being saved and am working out my salvation as God works in us to will and to do (sanctification), and finally I will be saved (when I’m raised from the dead and fully conformed to the image of Christ through the resurrection).
It is the mark of a really good book, that it makes you think hard, and revisit your own previous assumptions and convictions. This book certainly does that, and in various ways helps clarify for us all, what the NT is really talking about when the subject is imitation of Christ or God, or Paul or other mature Christians. Thank you Cornelius for all your many years of hard working laboring in the mimetic vineyard.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In