A classic critique of virtue is that there is no definitive list of which virtues are authoritative. Ought we to use Aristotle’s list, or Augustine’s? Perhaps we take only those listed opposite vices in the New Testament, or maybe instead opt to add those seen in natural law? These questions can begin to feel as if virtue is nebulous or ethereal, and we are simply guessing or debating its connection to the physical world. But if virtue is defined, in part, as being more than doing, then there is no greater definition to its being than in the being God. That is to say, in order to form an authoritative list of virtues, the reader ought to look no further than the character of God revealed in Christ Jesus. If virtue is the utmost end of man’s character, then the definitive list of virtue must be in direct correlation with the communicable attributes of God.[1] Bavinck writes that “[the communicable attributes] tell us that this God who is so infinitely exalted and sublime nevertheless also dwells in all His creatures, is related to all His creatures, and possesses all those virtues which in a derived and limited way are also proper to His creatures.”[2] While Bavinck is unlikely to be using virtue through the historical development of Augustine or Aquinas, the case remains that the communicable attributes of God can be rightly understood as totally virtuous. The communicable attributes of God, and more particularly God’s moral attributes, each inform our understanding of virtue.[3] Therefore, if God so magnanimously embodies virtue, those who seek to imitate him would do well to look to the virtuous as God’s chosen method and end of sanctification. Virtue is the act and being of Christ.
There is of course a second point of balance to be considered here. As virtue’s foundation has been considered to be found in the character of God, there is a specific virtue which finds itself removed from the others. The interesting part of this virtue is that it is not part of God’s eternal nature. At the risk of unraveling the argument above, it is posited here that there is one virtue which is uniquely human. At the same time, it finds its fullness and mean in the person of God, just not in eternity past.[4] That virtue is humility. Humility is unique among the virtues as it is one that God was only able to put on in the incarnation.[5] Philippians 2:5-8’s beautiful hymn describes that “Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.”
Humility is typically understood to concern a modest evaluation of the self or a refusal to assert or aggrandize one’s self. It is the antithesis of a pride which seeks to idolize the self, made evident in the words of 1 Peter 5:5, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” The eternal God has no need for humility, as he is incapable of pride, but still he chose to empty and humble himself in his humanity for the sake of the world. There is a great and awesome concern for the other in the triune God.[6] In eternity past, each person of the godhead is oriented to the other. In eternity future God is oriented to the redemption of his creation. But as we look to the description of Christ’s humility in Philippians 2, there is a clear assessment of the self in comparison with another (God) and an action of refusal of his deserts in addition to that outward orientation.
If we are to avoid lording virtue over those around us, we must look to the person of Christ as the foundation of virtue and do so with great humility. This humility is not just a directional posture towards the other, it is also a posture of the self. What is this posture? Harrison Ford might be of some help here. In the great documentary of religious history, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,[7] the late Sean Connery’s Professor Henry Jones lies captive and shot just outside of the path, muttering in his unexplained, but most welcome, Scotch-Irish accent, “only the penitent man shall pass.” Indiana steps over beheaded Nazis, contemplating the meaning of such a statement. It occurs to him: the penitent man is humble before God. The humble man kneels. How kneeling implies dropping and then rolling to dodge the secondary blade of the booby-trapped corridor is beyond me, but we will chalk that up to divine revelation. The posture is still evident. The humble kneel. Humility can be understood as a posturing of the self that does not seek its own glory. In consideration of the social other, the believer should refuse self-aggrandizement. Humility has the unique ability to recognize or to impose a limitation of the self. It is entirely possible that in any outworking of the virtuous, that we can and may err. We can err in our assessments. We can err in our actions. Humility is necessary if we are to seek virtue effectively, because, as you see, humility alone is a distinctly human virtue. And yet, in the incarnation, it is the virtue of Christ.
Notes:
[1]Note that these virtues are not offered as an exhaustive catalog, but rather are sweeping representations of God’s revealed character. There may be some nuance and expression between fine-tuned categories of virtue (e.g. compassion vs. charity as subsets of love) but these do not move beyond the bounds of traditional understandings of virtue.
[2]Herman Bavinck, Our Reasonable Faith, (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002), 137.
[3]Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 64-80. Berkhof’s wider categories of intellectual and sovereign attributes may also have some bearing on virtue (e.g. wisdom’s role in determining the virtuous mean), but do not themselves pertain to morality and therefore do not pertain to virtue implicitly.
[4]This is not to question the doctrine of immutability, as God’s nature and character are still without change. The virtue of humility is more posture than it is being. In the same way that God bends to hear his children (Psalm 116:2) or is described as near (Deut. 4:7), humility is a posture that Christ takes on in the incarnation, without sacrificing any aspect of his holiness or divinity. As Michael Bird notes, “The incarnation was a humble act of God to take on human nature, not as limiting his divinity but as expressing it in a new form outside the sphere of divine timelessness.” Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 130.
[5]If humility, as it is described here, were to be seen as an eternal virtue it would imply an eternal subordination of the Son, a kissing-cousin of Arianism with which Santa would be most displeased.
[6]An idea which, though we differ on our definitions of humility, Matthew Wilcoxen spells out with great clarity and beauty. See Matthew Wilcoxen, Divine Humility: God’s Morally Perfect Being, (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2019).
[7]Steven Spielberg, et al, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, (Hollywood, CA.: Paramount Pictures, 1989).
This resource is part of the series God in Flesh – Reflections on Advent and Incarnation. Click Here to explore more resources from this series.
Paul Morrison serves as lead pastor at Grantwood Community Church in suburban Cleveland, OH. He is also a co-founder and director of the Ohio Theological Institute. Paul holds a Ph.D. in Christian Ethics from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and is a member of the St. Peter Fellowship of the Center for Pastor Theologians.
