Could Jesus have caught an infectious disease?

[Bible Highlighter]

I’d like to disagree with some of my esteemed colleagues. I do agree that Jesus’ body was the same as ours, and so in principle he was subject to disease, just as we all are. To maintain otherwise is heresy.

But that doesn’t answer the question as to whether he actually got sick. I’m going to claim that if you had asked Luke that question, he would probably have said no, at least after his Baptism by John, based on Luke 7:18 ff.

Let me explain. Are the miracles just proofs of his divinity and authority? I don’t think that’s a proper reading of Synoptic theology. Rather, I think the healings are a sign of the presence of the Kingdom, which Jesus is bringing.

Jesus’ answer echoes OT prophetic texts about the end times, most clearly Is 61:1, but the commentary I’m looking at also cites 29:18 and 35:5. In the last days everyone will be healed. But Jesus is bringing the last day now. Otherwise his citation of those texts makes no sense. The healings aren’t just “miracles,” but are the opening of the eyes of the blind that was to come at the Day of the Lord, and are signs that it is, although in a hidden manner, present now.

As Paul noted, we are all simul justus et peccator. I.e. the Kingdom is only partly present with us. But this isn’t true of Jesus in the same way. I think it’s reasonable to suggest that as the embodiment of the Kingdom, he wouldn’t be sick.

You can certainly argue, as I think Viacrucis has suggested, that before his resurrection Jesus doesn’t show everything that members of the Kingdom will experience in eternity. Maybe that includes illness. But I think Jesus saw healing as a sign of the presence of the Kingdom now, and that this implies that Jesus himself wouldn’t have gotten sick.

While Jesus's body was like our flesh and blood (From Adam) in the fact that it could be susceptible to disease, such a thing was an impossibility because Jesus casting disease out of sick people was a picture of how Jesus (being the spotless Lamb) cleansed mankind of his sin (So as to offer him the free gift).


...

 

[mindlight]

This is, more-or-less the heresy known as aphthartodocetism, the belief that Jesus' body was incorruptible prior to His resurrection. It's little more than Diet Docetism, fewer calories perhaps, but just as bad.

-CryptoLutheran

Not really since that heresy regards Christs body as divine and impassible which is not being argued here. Christ is fully God and fully man in the same person. Moreover his body had to be free of corruption to be the required sacrifice for our atonement. Adam had such a human body before the fall that was incorruptible. Since Christ never sinned and because of his relation to the Divine and healing powers it seems unlikely that any kind of corruption could have persisted in his body unless he chose to permit that.

He demonstrated his glorified state before his resurrection at the Transfiguration as well as following his resurrection.

He chose to come to us in the limits of human form. He chose to go to his death and was able to take his body back having to preached to the spirits of the dead.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not really since that heresy regards Christs body as divine and impassible which is not being argued here. Christ is fully God and fully man in the same person. Moreover his body had to be free of corruption to be the required sacrifice for our atonement. Adam had such a human body before the fall that was incorruptible. Since Christ never sinned and because of his relation to the Divine and healing powers it seems unlikely that any kind of corruption could have persisted in his body unless he chose to permit that.

He demonstrated his glorified state before his resurrection at the Transfiguration as well as following his resurrection.

He chose to come to us in the limits of human form. He chose to go to his death and was able to take his body back having to preached to the spirits of the dead.

Aphthartodocetism is precisely Christ's flesh was, before the resurrection, incorruptible. That's what the "aphtharto" in aphthartodocetism, it means that Christ only seemed (dokeo) to have a corruptible (phthartos) body, but it was always, in fact, incorruptible (aphthartos).

"This foolish man, who confesses the passions with his lips only, hiding his impiety, wrote thus: 'Incorruptibility was always attached to the body of our Lord, which was passible of His own will for the sake of others.' And in brotherly love I wrote and asked him : 'What do you mean by "incorruptible," and "suffered of His own will for the sake of others," and "was attached to the body of our Lord," if without any falsehood you confess it to be by nature passible? For,if by the incorruptibility possessed by it you mean holiness without sin, we all confess this with you, that the holy body from the womb which He united to Himself originally by the Holy Spirit of the pure Virgin, the Theotokos, was conceived and born in the flesh without sin and conversed with us men, because "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," according to the testimony of the Scriptures. But, if you call impassibility and immortality incorruptibility, and say that the body which suffered in the flesh on our behalf was not one that was capable of suffering with voluntary passions and dying in the flesh, you reduce the saving passions on our behalf to a phantasy; for a thing which does not suffer also does not die, and it is a thing incapable of suffering.' And upon receiving such remarks as these from me he openly refused to call the holy body of Emmanuel passible in respect of voluntary passions; and therefore he did not hesitate to write thus, without shame and openly: 'We do not call Him of our nature in respect of passions, but in respect of essence. Therefore, even if He is impassible, and even if He is incorruptible, yet He is of our nature in respect of nature.'" - Severus of Antioch in regard to Julian of Halicarnassus

Aphthartodocetism - OrthodoxWiki

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then you are contradicting yourself even more than before.

What I've said has been consistent: That Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, as true man He didn't become something other than what we are, but became what we are. There's been no contradiction.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

that Jesus himself wouldn’t have gotten sick.

I'm not bothered by the notion that the Lord never got sick; I am bothered by the notion that Jesus couldn't have gotten sick. Whether the Lord ever caught the sniffles or not seems like an entirely different conversation than if He could have caught the sniffles. Because to say He couldn't, to suggest that His humanity was fundamentally unlike our own, fundamentally alien to our own, is to deny the actual humanity of Christ, it is to deny His sufferings, His humility, etc; it is a fundamental denial of the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

I'm not bothered by the notion that the Lord never got sick; I am bothered by the notion that Jesus couldn't have gotten sick. Whether the Lord ever caught the sniffles or not seems like an entirely different conversation than if He could have caught the sniffles. Because to say He couldn't, to suggest that His humanity was fundamentally unlike our own, fundamentally alien to our own, is to deny the actual humanity of Christ, it is to deny His sufferings, His humility, etc; it is a fundamental denial of the Incarnation.

-CryptoLutheran

yes. I agree.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus did not need to be an alien in order to die for our sins. He just needed to be the equivalent of a perfect Adam since Adam lost human perfection for us and sold us into sin.

Too much is being made of this platonic notion of "perfection". Was Jesus "perfect"? If that means he never got sick, never got hurt, never was sad, I'd say that's stating too much to claim perfection. THe doctrine of the Incarnation says Jesus was a real human being, but free from sin. That doesn't mean he was a superman. In fact, Christ's vulnerability is crucial to our salvation. Jesus makes God approachable to us by coming to us vulnerable, and by doing so, he shows us the heart of God. He could not do this if he were a superman and whips and germs just bounced off him like nothing.

Anything less would have been an underpayment. Anything more would have been an overpayment for our sins.

Go read Anselm's Cur Deus Homo. Overpayment is precisely how the notion of ransom or satisfaction you are referring to works.

Your whole theology basically denies the gratuitous nature of grace, it focuses too much on a legal or mechanistic view of the atonement.

If indeed Jesus had been fully human in the fallen sense, as we all are, then he would not have been able to die for OUR sins.

Nonsense. There's nothing sinful about being sick, any more than there is about being hungry.

Blamelessness was required and physical spotlessness in all sense of the word was a prerequisite.

Ridiculous, and insulting to the dignity of every disabled person out there.

That's why he is described as spotless and without a blemish. That's why the Passover Lamb which represented him prophetically had also to be unblemished.

His spotlessness is referring to his character, not the condition of his body. If we go by recent cinematic portrayals of the crucifixion, his body looked fairly close to raw meat. In addition, the Gospel account record him falling down carrying the cross. We can rest assured he didn't do this merely to put on a good show.

 

[RDKirk]

This is, more-or-less the heresy known as aphthartodocetism, the belief that Jesus' body was incorruptible prior to His resurrection. It's little more than Diet Docetism, fewer calories perhaps, but just as bad.

-CryptoLutheran

A few people are arguing that aphthartodocetist position, but not everyone.

I would agree, I believe, with Hedrick (and I think my earlier post made that clear).

Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.

The disciples were amazed. "Who is this man?" they asked. "Even the winds and waves obey him!"

The issue is not whether Jesus' physical body could be drowned, the point is that creation obeys its Master: The wind and the waves would have refrained from drowning Him, and had the disciples been of faith they would have understood that. Would the waves have drowned Him? No.


When the demon saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his voice, "What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, don't torture me!"

Let's ask this question: Would a demon have possessed Jesus? Not "could" because Jesus was indeed physically a man, but would a demon--who totally knew Jesus as the Lord of even his own creation (Colossians 1), and knew of Satan's defeat in the wilderness--even attempt to possess Him?

Now when Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to Him, pleading with Him, saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, dreadfully tormented.”

And Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”

The centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that You should come under my roof. But only speak a word, and my servant will be healed.
....
While traveling to Jerusalem, Jesus passed between Samaria and Galilee. As He entered a village, men with serious skin diseases met Him.

They stood at a distance and raised their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”

When He saw them, He told them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And while they were going, they were healed.

It's clear enough that Jesus could only be laid low by, say, influenza only if He expressly permitted those microbes to affect him. The physical nature of Jesus' body is not the issue--the fact that creation obeyed Him is the point.

So the only real question is whether it would ever have been advantageous for Jesus' ministry for Him to have been laid low by, say, influenza, because such could only happen if and when it was by Jesus' express intention that it happened.

Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.

At what point does Jesus see the Father fall ill to a common sickness? When would that have been profitable to His purpose on earth to permit creation to lay Him low?

No one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

It could happen only when Jesus permitted it to happen, because creation obeyed its Master.

 

[Deadworm]

Let's look at what the Word of God actually implies about Jesus' vulnerability to sickness and infirmity: "He was despised and rejected, a man of sorrows and acquainted with infirmity (Hebrew: choli--Isaiah 53:3--NRSV)." The context is discussing not the Suffering Servant's atoning death, but his life as a whole: "For he grew up before Him like a young plant (52:2)." Likewise, he same verse alludes not to his disfigured appearance on the cross, but his unremarkable physical appearance in general: "He had no form or majesty that we should look at him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." to see how consistently, "choli" means "sickness ore disease," look up Isaiah 1:5; 38:9; 53:3 and 4; Deuteronomy 7:15; 28:60-61; Ecclesiastes 5:16; 1 Kgs 17:17; 2 Kings 1:2; 8:8-9; 13:14; 2 Chronicles 21:15, 18).

Isaiah 53:3 serves as background for 2 mutually clarifying texts about Jesus' human nature in Hebrews:

"He had to become like His brothers in every respect, so that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people of God (2:17)."
"For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one has in every respect been tested, just as we are, yet without sin (4:15)."

What is it about "in every respect" that our readers don't understand? These texts imply that in His humanity Jesus is in every way like us, including the vulnerabilities of our bodies to weakness and illness, and the weakness of our willpower in passing every kind of spiritual test. And no, Jason, peirazo" in 4:15 does mean both "test" and "tempt."

 

[RDKirk]

What is it about "in every respect" that our readers don't understand? These texts imply that in His humanity Jesus is in every way like us, including the vulnerabilities of our bodies to weakness and illness, and the weakness of our willpower in passing every kind of spiritual test. And no, Jason, peirazo" in 4:15 does mean both "test" and "tempt."

You seem to think that "tested" necessarily means "failed the test."

You also seem to think that to have been tested in physical infirmity must necessarily mean every possible type of physical infirmity any human being is susceptible to.

Do you believe Jesus actually suffered AIDS? Do you think He actually suffered a broken neck?

How about strep throat? Malaria? Gonorrhea? Diabetes? Cervical spondylosis? Obesity?

Do you think Jesus suffered every disease ever known to man?

Was it necessary for Him to have been tested in every possible infirmity?

No? Then how many infirmities must He suffer? Fifty? Thirty?

Eight?

One? Why not one? After all, the fall of Adam only took one sin.

He suffered a test of extreme hunger near to starvation to death, an infirmity of the flesh.

He also suffered a test of greed.

And He also suffered a test of pride.

Scripture says there are three categories of sin:

For everything in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from the Father but from the world.

Jesus was tempted in all three categories, and that is all that was needed. If Jesus suffered a temptation of the flesh--starvation unto near death--and conquered it, that established His superiority over His flesh. He needed not suffer anything else.

 

[mindlight]

Aphthartodocetism is precisely Christ's flesh was, before the resurrection, incorruptible. That's what the "aphtharto" in aphthartodocetism, it means that Christ only seemed (dokeo) to have a corruptible (phthartos) body, but it was always, in fact, incorruptible (aphthartos).

"This foolish man, who confesses the passions with his lips only, hiding his impiety, wrote thus: 'Incorruptibility was always attached to the body of our Lord, which was passible of His own will for the sake of others.' And in brotherly love I wrote and asked him : 'What do you mean by "incorruptible," and "suffered of His own will for the sake of others," and "was attached to the body of our Lord," if without any falsehood you confess it to be by nature passible? For,if by the incorruptibility possessed by it you mean holiness without sin, we all confess this with you, that the holy body from the womb which He united to Himself originally by the Holy Spirit of the pure Virgin, the Theotokos, was conceived and born in the flesh without sin and conversed with us men, because "He did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth," according to the testimony of the Scriptures. But, if you call impassibility and immortality incorruptibility, and say that the body which suffered in the flesh on our behalf was not one that was capable of suffering with voluntary passions and dying in the flesh, you reduce the saving passions on our behalf to a phantasy; for a thing which does not suffer also does not die, and it is a thing incapable of suffering.' And upon receiving such remarks as these from me he openly refused to call the holy body of Emmanuel passible in respect of voluntary passions; and therefore he did not hesitate to write thus, without shame and openly: 'We do not call Him of our nature in respect of passions, but in respect of essence. Therefore, even if He is impassible, and even if He is incorruptible, yet He is of our nature in respect of nature.'" - Severus of Antioch in regard to Julian of Halicarnassus

Aphthartodocetism - OrthodoxWiki

-CryptoLutheran

Christs humanity was not a fantasy. But his body could only have gotten sick if Christ had sinned. While he had the potential to sin and therefore also to become susceptible to illness there is no record he ever did. Also a full human being in such close proximity and intimacy with the Divine would have received full healing. Christs nature as a full human is not in discussion here. The link between illness and sin is. Christ did not get sick simply cause he was God and it was impossible. He did not get sick cause his human body, being without sin, had no susceptibility to illness. It is not in our human design to be sick - this is a result of sin.

Also atonement required a perfect sacrifice. A diseased Christ would not have been that.

 

[Deadworm]

RDKirk: "You seem to think that "tested" necessarily means "failed the test."

Ah, the sad need of posters to put words in my mouth to create a silly strawman! Jesus never failed any test in the sense of sinning. But like every human, He did need to mature and learn by trial and error. The best example of this is Luke 2:41-52. The 12-year-old Jesus had deserted His family's travelling party to go to the Temple and ask questions. He failed to notify His parents about this plan and therefore got them worried sick about His fate and forced them to undertake a 3-day search to track Him down. Mary rightly scolds Him for His lack of consideration. Indeed, like any parents, Joseph and
Mary had no doubt instructed Him to stay with the group and let them know where He was. After this inconsiderate act, Luke wryly notes that, after this, "He was obedient to them." Jesus mistake prompts Luke's additional comment: "Jesus increased in wisdom...and in divine favor." A child's need to learn by trial and error is maturation, not sin. Hebrews 5:8 reflects on Jesus' flawed humanity and tellingly observes: Son though He was, He learned obedience through the things He suffered." Obedience can't be learned unless there was a prior time of disobedience (such as in Luke 2:41-52) or at least nonobedience.

RDKirk: "He suffered a test of extreme hunger near to starvation to death, an infirmity of the flesh.
He also suffered a test of greed.
And He also suffered a test of pride."

Your little list seems restricted to the wilderness temptations and thus overlooks Luke's teaching that Jesus' was tested throughout His ministry: Luke 4:13). "When the Devil had finished every test, he departed from Him until an opportune time (Luke 4:13)." Here are just 3 examples:

Jesus was tempted to abandon His mission of atoning death. After His initial revelation of His upcoming atoning death, Peter vigorously opposes this mission and Jesus exclaims "Get behind me, Satan" (Mark 8:34--as opposed to "Get lost, Peter!") because Satan is the Tempter and Jesus is already tempted to seek a way out of this fate. This temptation recurs in Gethsemane, prompting Jesus to pray, "Abba Father,... let this cup pass from me (Mark 14:36)!" before He relents and submits to God's will. Then in the agony of the cross, Jesus accuses God of abandoning Him (Mark 15:34, quoting Psalm 22:1), overcomes this test, and eventually utters the triumphant cry, "It is finished (John 19:30)!"

RD Kirk: "He need not suffer anything else."

Refuted above. It's interesting that you can say this, while ducking my explanation of how Isaiah 53:3 refutes your point.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

i am doing a sermon on Jesus healing a leper. It struck me that being in proximity to a person with Hansens disease ( in an age where there was no cure) carried the risk of catching it. Apparently 95% of people are immune from the disease but Jesus sent out disciples to cure leprosy also. Were they chosen for being immune or supernaturally protected?

So comes the question:

Could Jesus have caught a disease he was able to heal a person of? Was it his divine nature that innoculated him in which case did he fully experience being human. Or was it his superior discernment about how to engage with sick people?

Could Jesus have gotten sick at all? Do you think Jesus ever had a cold?

being fully human he would be possible for him to get a disease, otherwise he would not have been able to die.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Christs humanity was not a fantasy. But his body could only have gotten sick if Christ had sinned. While he had the potential to sin and therefore also to become susceptible to illness there is no record he ever did. Also a full human being in such close proximity and intimacy with the Divine would have received full healing. Christs nature as a full human is not in discussion here. The link between illness and sin is. Christ did not get sick simply cause he was God and it was impossible. He did not get sick cause his human body, being without sin, had no susceptibility to illness. It is not in our human design to be sick - this is a result of sin.

Also atonement required a perfect sacrifice. A diseased Christ would not have been that.

Please prove scripturally that one can only fall sick if one has sinned. This idea you present sickens me to my stomach. Illness is not a form of punishment of sin.

 

[mindlight]

Please prove scripturally that one can only fall sick if one has sinned. This idea you present sickens me to my stomach. Illness is not a form of punishment of sin.

There was no sickness before the fall (Genesis 1-3) and there will be none when we are resurrected (Rev 22). Sickness is not therefore a basic feature of the human condition nor a defining feature of our humanity nor the most prevalent experience of the human condition. Sickness is a feature of the age of sin between fall and redemption.

In the example used in the OP of a leper, impurity was regarded as the fundamental problem of which leprosy was a symptom(Leviticus 13).

It is not necessarily my sin that makes me sick but original sin which I inherit. The key question is therefore whether or not the humanity that Jesus inherited from Mary was tainted with original sin and if so to what extent its effects were neutralised or overcome by the presence guidance and healing power of the Divine in the person of Christ. Catholics get round this with the immaculate conception. Protestants leave it as a bit of a mystery as tp what extent Jesus might have had to wrestle with sin in himself and therefore sickness ( as a symptom of sin).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There was no sickness before the fall (Genesis 1-3) and there will be none when we are resurrected (Rev 22). Sickness is not therefore a basic feature of the human condition nor a defining feature of our humanity nor the most prevalent experience of the human condition. Sickness is a feature of the age of sin between fall and redemption.

In the example used in the OP of a leper, impurity was regarded as the fundamental problem of which leprosy was a symptom(Leviticus 13).

It is not necessarily my sin that makes me sick but original sin which I inherit. The key question is therefore whether or not the humanity that Jesus inherited from Mary was tainted with original sin and if so to what extent its effects were neutralised or overcome by the presence guidance and healing power of the Divine in the person of Christ. Catholics get round this with the immaculate conception. Protestants leave it as a bit of a mystery as tp what extent Jesus might have had to wrestle with sin in himself and therefore sickness ( as a symptom of sin).

You are assuming that Jesus was bodily the same as Adam, that fallen man was changed by sin to be susceptible to these things, but Jesus wasn't. I don't think you can Scripturally make this assumption. We don't know how Jesus's genetic code or the changes in nature brought about by the Fall acted here. Maybe Adam would have been susceptible to disease as you or I, but the microbes just weren't as virulent. I mean Adam had no risk of being mauled by a lion, but it sure isn't anything in Adam's body that made him immune to lion-mauling. Rather Nature itself groans under the strain of sin.
Even then, I see no reason to think Jesus's physical body was Adamic.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Jesus was not necessarily in control of the Father's power through him (Mark 5:30).

That's not correct. Jesus IS God, and He has always been in control of the Father's power through Him.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Your distinction between internal and external temptation is bogus: it assumes that 2 distinct "persons" inhabiting Jesus' body--one human and the other divine.

Have you ever read any of the early Church Fathers? How about the seven Ecumenical Councils?

What you are posting is the heresy of Arius, a 4th century priest who said that Jesus was a created being, and not God Himself. (Note: I am not calling YOU a heretic.) However, this was settled by the first Ecumenical Council in 325 A.D.

You might not believe that a bunch of Roman Catholic bishops in 325 would be able to make up a bunch off man-made traditions that should not apply to you. If that is the case, then disregard this post and go on with your life. I can't stop you.

But that bunch of bishops were not "just" Roman Catholics. This was a group of Christian Church leaders from around the known world that had come to Ephesus at the request of Constantine to sort out issues of this sort. And there was only ONE brand of Christian back then. It was neither Roman or Imperial. What it was was catholic (universal) and orthodox (right thinking), and they defined Christianity for the next 1,000 years.

 

[Monk Brendan]

But his body could only have gotten sick if Christ had sinned.

Wrong! Jesus' human flesh did not become sick because He did not WILL it. Remember, Jesus IS God. He healed because He willed to.

Sin never entered the situation. Jesus was God, and WILLED not to sin, either in the desert, at the top of a mountain, or even hanging on the Cross.

 

[Deadworm]

On the contrary, Monk, you are defending Jason's post; and Jason is unwittingly defending the heresy of Apollinarism, which was condemned by the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. This heresy teaches that Jesus had a human soul, but a divine mind. But orthodoxy teaches that Jesus was one "Person" with one "soul" and one "mind, " in which His fully human and divine natures were one.

Once again, you are putting words in my mouth by accusing me of Arianism. I never said, nor do I believe, that Jesus is a created being; on the contrary, I believe Jesus was virgin-born and the manifestation in flesh of the pre-existent divine Logos (meaning "the rational self-expression of God").