Did Jesus Ever Get The Flu?
I get this question all the time.
“Did Jesus ever get the flu?”
Saint Thomas, quoting Chrysostom, says:
…it was not befitting Him who healed the infirmities of others to have his own body afflicted with the same.
It is not fitting for the Divine Physician to suffer from illness.
Christ uses the material order to signify his spiritual power. For example, Christ raises the dead to signify the power He has to raise souls from mortal sin to spiritual life, and He opens the eyes of the blind to signify His ability to confer spiritual sight.
Since the material corresponds to the physical, it was unfitting for the Son of God, who did not have spiritual sickness, to assume a physical sickness.
But perhaps you’re thinking, Christ did not assume spiritual death, i.e., mortal sin, so why did He assume physical death?
Regarding the defects Christ assumed, Thomas says this:
Christ assumed human defects in order to satisfy for the sin of human nature, and for this it was necessary for Him to have the fullness of knowledge and grace in His soul. Hence Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace. And thus it was not fitting for Him to assume all human defects or infirmities. For there are some defects that are incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace, as ignorance, a proneness towards evil, and a difficulty in well-doing.
Christ assumed the defects common to men that flow from the Fall, so long as they do not hinder His mission to save all men. Christ came to be our teacher and redeemer, so He does not assume ignorance or sin. In order to save us, He assumes defects from Original Sin, but not the Sin itself nor the proneness to sin.
But isn’t sickness a defect from Original Sin?
Thomas continues:
Some other defects do not flow from the whole of human nature in common on account of the sin of our first parent, but are caused in some men by certain particular causes, as leprosy, epilepsy, and the like; and these defects are sometimes brought about by the fault of the man, e.g., from inordinate eating; sometimes by a defect in the formative power. Now neither of these pertains to Christ, since His flesh was conceived of the Holy Spirit, Who has infinite wisdom and power, and cannot err or fail; and He Himself did nothing wrong in the order of His life.
Thomas lists two causes of physical illness.
Failing to take proper care of bodily health.
Men are morally obligated to take care of their bodies by eating the proper amount and right type of food, getting sufficient sleep, exercising reasonably, etc. Since Christ is sinless, He never unreasonably neglected his health, so He cannot fall ill for this reason.
Weakness in the formative power.
The other reason men get sick is due to the wounded nature they inherit from their parents. If a child is born with type one diabetes, the illness is not because the child neglected their health; rather, it is because the child received a wounded nature from his parents. Genetic diseases and the like are a result of the Fall. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, there would be no weakness in the formative power, and parents would pass on a perfect human nature to their children. Since Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, there is absolutely no defect in the way He was formed, so He cannot fall ill for this reason.
Since neither of these causes of illness were in Christ, there was no reason for Him to get sick.
Then what defects does He assume?
Thomas says:
…there are some third defects, to be found amongst all men in common, by reason of the sin of our first parent, as death, hunger, thirst, and the like; and all these defects Christ assumed, which Damascene calls “natural and indetractible passions” —natural, as following all human nature in common; indetractible, as implying no defect of knowledge or grace.
Christ assumed the defects that flow universally to all men from Original Sin so that He might universally redeem men from Original Sin. St. John Damascene calls these defects “natural.” However, when assuming our defects, He does not assume any that would cause a deficiency in His knowledge or grace, and for this reason, Damascene calls Christ’s defects “indetractible.”
This is why Thomas (as quoted earlier) says:
Christ ought to have assumed those defects which flow from the common sin of the whole nature, yet are not incompatible with the perfection of knowledge and grace.
So… if Christ never got sick, how does He redeem sickness?
Although Jesus never got a cold or had chronic migraines, Christians can still unite these sufferings to the Cross. Christ could not assume every possible suffering because some sufferings are incompatible, e.g., burning to death and drowning; however, He did redeem all man’s bodily suffering by suffering in each part of His body. He redeemed migraines by suffering in His head from the crowning with thorns and back pain by His scourging. He ultimately redeems all man’s bodily pains by suffering in His whole body (cf. ST III,46,5).
So, next time you’re sick, and someone tells you to “offer it up,” hopefully, you will recognize some of Thomas’ theology in this simple phrase.
Thanks for reading,
Cameron
Reference:
https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.III.Q46.A3.Rep2
I am glad for this day’s dose of our beloved saint and doctor, and grateful that they are at a less than daily frequency which may allow me to catch up one day. Please accept my encouragement to keep on with this useful work.
Some of the heretics thought that any and all limitations of being human were unfitting of a fully divine Son of the Father. I seem to recall from Protestant seminary many decades ago that therefore some heretics diminished his Godhead, while others nixed the Incarnation altogether by saying Christ only appeared to be human. Either way our salvation suffers.
Through careful and meaningful distinctions, the Angelic Doctor upholds the Incarnation, without--pardon my deficiency of thought--presuming that Jesus falls into the pit he is saving us from.
So I liked his explanation that by suffering in every part of his body our Lord is able to redeem all our suffering without having to experience every possible way of suffering or manner of death.
Great stuff.
It all bears my reading again, and promises to benefit the likes of me, now a grateful Catholic convert with no background in Thomas.
It’s not surprising in light of the meaningful distinctions he makes on today’s topic, that even with his great intellect and sanctity, there were times that Thomas leaned his head on the Tabernacle to learn from the Logos who dwells among us. And we can lean on Thomas and follow the saints whom the Church has declared truly followed Christ.
In these days in the Catholic Church of journeying who knows where, with shamelessly compromised guides, how much more helpful it is for us to follow the path of Thomas’ reasoning, to lay our heads figuratively upon or at least apply our heads to his oeuvre and obviously higher caliber of thinking. It suits our revealed religion, that God would not leave us without such a saintly guide for challenging times.