# Did Jesus ever get sick?



## Mr. Bultitude

Athanasius says no:



> How could He fall sick, Who had healed others? Or how could that body weaken and fail by means of which others are made strong? ... And as to the unsuitability of sickness for His body, as arguing weakness, you may say, "Did He then not hunger?" Yes, He hungered, because that was the property of His body, but He did not die of hunger because He Whose body hungered was the Lord. ... Should He Who healed the bodies of others neglect to keep His own in health? How would His miracles of healing be believed, if this were so? Surely people would either laugh at Him as unable to dispel disease or else consider Him lacking in proper human feeling because He could do so, but did not.



Now, this section of On the Incarnation, whether it's right or wrong, doesn't negate the thrust of Athanasius' argument about Jesus' death and resurrection. But I can't find any agreement with the portion I've quoted, and I wonder if that's because I'm missing something -- or if he was.

Jesus was fully man, and subject to the corruptions of the human body. We know he aged. We know that he was subject to temptation but did not sin. We know he hungered (as Athanasius mentions) but did not starve to death. But my interpretation of that would be that the reason he didn't starve to death was because he ate, not because he was God incarnate. Could he have kept himself healthy divinely? Absolutely. But did he? I can't see why he would. Wasn't that what the devil tempted him with in the desert? That he should not keep himself subject to hunger, but circumvent nature to keep himself healthy and satisfied?

And to me, the weakest portion of Athanasius' argument seems to be that Jesus would have been laughed at. Jesus was scorned and jeered for all kinds of things! That never stopped him from doing anything. What's more, the apostles after him both healed others and were subject to illness themselves. Were they laughed at? I would imagine they were. But they carried on anyway, knowing that God's wisdom is foolishness to the world.


----------



## Peairtach

He was in all points human like us ,except for sin.

I don't understand this notion that He never had an illness and/or was incapable of having an illness.

Maybe someone can explain the theology behind such thinking.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## R Harris

In John 4:6, it states "so Jesus, *wearied as He was from His journey*, was sitting beside the well.

If He got tired, hungry, and thirsty, I cannot see why He could not have been susceptible to at least some sort of minor illness. Although, since the Gospels don't explicit (or implicitly, as far as I can tell) say that he had some illness, then it is speculation, so we do have to take some care here.


----------



## Leslie

The problem that I see with Athanasius is that he assumes Jesus could heal at will. He could not. He could only do what the Father showed him. He could not do many miracles in Nazareth because of their unbelief. He refused to turn stone into bread, to satisfy his own legitimate need.


----------



## Alan D. Strange

Is eating and eliminating and even growing tired all part of being human? Yes, though the last item may require more defense and explication. We have finite bodies, and did not, even in our state of innocency, have bodies capable of infinite energy. Thus after expending so much energy, even in paradise, we would need to be refreshed. 

Is getting sick part of being human? No, that's a result of being a sinful human being. Just like anger is murder in seed form, all sickness is death in seed form, to which we are subject because it is the appropriate wage of sin. The Son of God, in the integrity of his theanthropic person, was not subject to death (though he willingly laid down his life for us). Because he thirsted and grew tired does not mean that he would automatically get sick (and die). And is Athanasius saying that he was incapable of becoming sick or that it would have been unfitting for him? On more than one occasion, Athanasius, in_ De Incarnatione, _ employs language that seems to imply necessity when in fact his concern is seemliness.

I am not making a full-court press defense of Athanasius here, just trying to explore what he might be getting at. The fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries were much keener, and more sensitive, with respect to these intricate matters about the person of Christ than we tend to be. It's not easy to hold together the fact that He was truly God and truly man. We emphasize one and tend to lose sight of the other. In the whole of his work, Athanasius is trying to hold this together, so we might want to read him carefully and disagree only reluctantly. 

Read Leo's Tome for the best attempt at expressing the great mystery of the two natures in one person, captured at Chalcedon (451) in the formulary, "two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no division, no separation; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, God, Word, Lord Jesus Christ.”

My encouragement is to think more deeply about this before dismissing what Athanasius has to say. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40

If Our Lord grew older, biologically speaking, He could have become sick In my most humble opinion. It is natural for healthy cells to become infected when exposed to disease, and the possibility is real that He could have died if He became infected with many diseases in the post fall world, outside of the garden. Of course the "possibility" of Jesus dying any death other than the cross is an impossibility from how His Father ordained to come to pass.


----------



## earl40

The result of dying from a lack of blood or via asphyxiation on a cross is no different than a disease killing from within. Our Lord gave up His spirit before He succumbed to the natural death which would have come if He had not done so. Which once again was impossible according to what was ordained.


----------



## Peairtach

Christ suffered throughout His life not because of His own sin, but because of that of others. This included e.g. the pain and loss of blood of circumcision. I do not see why as part of that suffering for His people, and with His people, that He could not have undergone e.g. the usual illnesses of childhood in His time and place. 

Whether he did or not is speculation because we're not explicitly told one way or another, but I see no theological reason why not, as being a siness man, yet carrying the sins of His people.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> Christ suffered throughout His life not because of His own sin, but because of that of others. This included e.g. the pain and loss of blood of circumcision. I do not see why as part of that suffering for His people, and with His people, that He could not have undergone e.g. the usual illnesses of childhood in His time and place.
> 
> Whether he did or not is speculation because we're not explicitly told one way or another, but I see no theological reason why not, as being a siness man, yet carrying the sins of His people.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2





I agree there is a difference between moral fallen man and fallen man who sufferers because of Adam which is natural.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Our Lord gave up His spirit before He succumbed to the natural death which would have come if He had not done so.



Why do you believe death would have come anyway? John 10:18, among other clear statements, indicates there was no natural inevitability in His death. Besides, the matter seems settled when we read that God would not suffer His holy One to see corruption, and that this was one of the key theological reasons given to explain the resurrection.

The renewing spirit was more than capable of sustaining and restoring the physical element, and the Messianic promise of Ps. 91 applied immediately to His condition.


----------



## Pergamum

Concerning aging:

In the Old Testament, you couldn't offer an old animal for sacrifice. It appears Jesus was killed in the prime/peak of his manhood. I cannot imagine that he began to "age" but had only stopped "maturing" at the time of His death.


----------



## Peairtach

Pergamum said:


> Concerning aging:
> 
> In the Old Testament, you couldn't offer an old animal for sacrifice. It appears Jesus was killed in the prime/peak of his manhood. I cannot imagine that he began to "age" but had only stopped "maturing" at the time of His death.



The question of whether Christ in His state of humiliation would have suffered the effects of old age is rather hypothetical, since He was at the most 38 years old at the time of His death.

I always thought that the laws on the relative physical perfection of the priests and sacrifices were to encourage the giving of one's best to God in regard to the worship involved in sacrifice, and also to teach the people about Christ's spiritual and moral perfections and not His bodily condition.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Why do you believe death would have come anyway? John 10:18, among other clear statements, indicates there was no natural inevitability in His death. Besides, the matter seems settled when we read that God would not suffer His holy One to see corruption, and that this was one of the key theological reasons given to explain the resurrection.
> 
> The renewing spirit was more than capable of sustaining and restoring the physical element, and the Messianic promise of Ps. 91 applied immediately to His condition.



As I said it was impossible for Jesus to die any other way than how The Father commanded "*This command* I received from my Father."as per His ordination for what is to pass.  Jesus in his humanity got sick, as is natural for the body to get hungry.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> The question of whether Christ in His state of humiliation would have suffered the effects of old age is rather hypothetical, since He was at the most 38 years old at the time of His death.



At the age of 37 or 33 we all have aged or suffered from the effects of the fall. No doubt Our Lord looked at least 30 and not 18 when He died. If He was ordained to die at 100 He would have looked 100. I can't imagine what Our Lord would have looked like if He was ordained to die at 500 in a post fallen body which looked like 500. Tell me He would not been in the appearance of ill or sick health if He were such an age.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> The question of whether Christ in His state of humiliation would have suffered the effects of old age is rather hypothetical, since He was at the most 38 years old at the time of His death.



Now that I am 53 and working in the medical field for 30 plus years I know all people show evidence of sickness in their body at any any age past birth. This is a natural consequent of living in a post fallen world.


----------



## Pergamum

earl40 said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of whether Christ in His state of humiliation would have suffered the effects of old age is rather hypothetical, since He was at the most 38 years old at the time of His death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the age of 37 or 33 we all have aged or suffered from the effects of the fall. No doubt Our Lord looked at least 30 and not 18 when He died. If He was ordained to die at 100 He would have looked 100. I can't imagine what Our Lord would have looked like if He was ordained to die at 500 in a post fallen body which looked like 500. Tell me He would not been in the appearance of ill or sick health if He were such an age.
Click to expand...


I believe you to be wrong here.

I maintain that Jesus was a human in the peak of his life, a perfect sacrifice in all regards. He seems to have started his ministry at 30 and died at 33, not after he began to get old and decay. This is not an entirely speculative area of doctrine because we are told numerous times in the Old Testament that sacrifices could not be old, or lame. This leads me to the tentative conclusion that he matured up to the peak of manhood and then offered Himself. It also leaves me with the unsatisfying possible conclusion that if Jesus had broken his leg in a fall on the way to Jerusalem, He might not be a perfect fit for a sacrifice if the OT types were examples.

A grey-haired decrepit 500-year old Jesus offering Himself up seems at odds with the Levitical laws of sacrifice.


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of whether Christ in His state of humiliation would have suffered the effects of old age is rather hypothetical, since He was at the most 38 years old at the time of His death.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the age of 37 or 33 we all have aged or suffered from the effects of the fall. No doubt Our Lord looked at least 30 and not 18 when He died. If He was ordained to die at 100 He would have looked 100. I can't imagine what Our Lord would have looked like if He was ordained to die at 500 in a post fallen body which looked like 500. Tell me He would not been in the appearance of ill or sick health if He were such an age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you to be wrong here.
> 
> I maintain that Jesus was a human in the peak of his life, a perfect sacrifice in all regards. He seems to have started his ministry at 30 and died at 33, not after he began to get old and decay. This is not an entirely speculative area of doctrine because we are told numerous times in the Old Testament that sacrifices could not be old, or lame. This leads me to the tentative conclusion that he matured up to the peak of manhood and then offered Himself. It also leaves me with the unsatisfying possible conclusion that if Jesus had broken his leg in a fall on the way to Jerusalem, He might not be a perfect fit for a sacrifice if the OT types were examples.
> 
> A grey-haired decrepit 500-year old Jesus offering Himself up seems at odds with the Levitical laws of sacrifice.
Click to expand...


A 33yo is older than a newborn. In other words, if Our Lord had one grey or the loss of one hair it would be the effect of the fall as much as sickness. Thus is the effect of the fall as was the bleeding of any wound He incurred while He was was crucified.


----------



## earl40

Also if Our Lord died while having a cold, His moral or perfect perfection would not be in question.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> As I said it was impossible for Jesus to die any other way than how The Father commanded "*This command* I received from my Father."as per His ordination for what is to pass.  Jesus in his humanity got sick, as is natural for the body to get hungry.



Hunger and sickness are two different types of human need. Hunger can be attributed to mere want of food, as in Matthew 4, and does not close off the possibility of extraordinary sustenance. In Scripture sickness is closely connected with the fallen state. It has associations in the Psalms with the consciousness of sin. Moreover, healing the sick was a sign of the kingdom of God coming in the person of Christ.

There was nothing inevitable about the death of Christ. It was a voluntary yielding up of His spirit in accord with the command of the covenant of grace. The "command" was not a foreordination of the event which must take place fatalistically.

Sickness entails dissolution of the physical constitution to some degree, which would fall under the term "corruption." Did God allow His holy One to see corruption?


----------



## Pergamum

I don't believe Jesus had grey hair either. Nor male-pattern baldness. He was a healthy sacrifice, in the prime of life.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Did God allow His holy One to see corruption?




In the grave? This I believe makes my point in that IF Jesus' body was in the grave for a year His cells would have been decomposed and seen corruption. Or do you hold differently?


----------



## earl40

Pergamum said:


> I don't believe Jesus had grey hair either. Nor male-pattern baldness. He was a healthy sacrifice, in the prime of life.



Jesus had skin cells die off which were replaced with new cells to replace the dead cells. Men after the fall are generally given 3 score ten years which also starts at birth...In other words, from birth our bodies begin to die and not at 33ish.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> In the grave? This I believe makes my point in that IF Jesus' body was in the grave for a year His cells would have been decomposed and seen corruption. Or do you hold differently?



"It was not possible that He should be holden of it." Why? Acts 2 teaches that preservation from corruption is not an effect of the resurrection, but the reason for the resurrection. That theological reason was operative because of Who the Christ is. He is the holy One, the Lord's Anointed, in a sense which not even David could claim.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Hunger and sickness are two different types of human need.



I am thinking that Jesus being the second Adam shared the same attributes Adam did before the fall. As a side note what are your thoughts on "the tree of life" in that was Adam eating from that tree in the garden? Now I ask not thinking that the tree contained some magical fruit that contained a substance to impart immortality but that Adam did not eat of that tree after the fall...Do you think Adam was enjoying the fruit before the fall?


----------



## Peairtach

earl40 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hunger and sickness are two different types of human need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking that Jesus being the second Adam shared the same attributes Adam did before the fall. As a side note what are your thoughts on "the tree of life" in that was Adam eating from that tree in the garden? Now I ask not thinking that the tree contained some magical fruit that contained a substance to impart immortality but that Adam did not eat of that tree after the fall...Do you think Adam was enjoying the fruit before the fall?
Click to expand...


I think you'd have to start a different thread on that, Earl, as it's a rather different topic.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> "It was not possible that He should be holden of it." Why? Acts 2 teaches that preservation from corruption is not an effect of the resurrection, but the reason for the resurrection. That theological reason was operative because of Who the Christ is. He is the holy One, the Lord's Anointed, in a sense which not even David could claim.



Here it appears God would not allow His body to see corruption. The inference I draw from this is that He was raised before His cells saw corruption.

27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> I think you'd have to start a different thread on that, Earl, as it's a rather different topic.



Indeed, though if we see Our Lord as having the same attributes as Adam before the fall it may be relevant. This is my point in that Jesus suffered the effects of the fall (suffering and sickness) because of the fall.


----------



## Peairtach

*Matthew*


> Hunger and sickness are two different types of human need. Hunger can be attributed to mere want of food, as in Matthew 4, and does not close off the possibility of extraordinary sustenance. In Scripture sickness is closely connected with the fallen state. It has associations in the Psalms with the consciousness of sin. Moreover, healing the sick was a sign of the kingdom of God coming in the person of Christ.



I'm trying to learn more about this, Matthew, so please bear with me.

Are you saying that there were forms of trouble that an unfallen yet sin-bearing Man like Christ could be subject to and others that were necessarily excluded? E.g. although He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and suffered many and various troubles, He couldn't suffer a transient childhood illness or get a blister on his thumb?


----------



## earl40

Could Adam have become sick if he was exposed to a virus? Now this assume outside the garden there was disease and Adam stepped outside.


----------



## Pergamum

There is a difference between maturation and change into adulthood and degeneration into old age.


----------



## Peairtach

Pergamum said:


> There is a difference between maturation and change into adulthood and degeneration into old age.



Of course there is. And the question of old age is purely hypothetical because our Lord did not need to live in His state of humiliation beyond the age of thirty-eight at most, to fulfil His Father's will and do what was necessary for our salvation.

A better question would be whether our Lord could have had a transient childhood illness as part of His life under the state of humiliation, or the everyday minor cuts and bruises of manual labour?



Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## earl40

Peairtach said:


> And the question of old age is purely hypothetical because our Lord did not need to live in His state of humiliation beyond the age of thirty-eight at most, to fulfil His Father's will and do what was necessary for our salvation.
> 
> A better question would be whether our Lord could have had a transient childhood illness as part of His life under the state of humiliation, or the everyday minor cuts and bruises of manual labour?



I don't think anybody here would think Our Lord could not bleed if He stepped on a nail. Now could that injury become infected is the question. If not, I suspect there would be no need for Mary to clean the wound if He did. Of course she would have, but if it was needed or not to be cleaned is the question.


----------



## MW

Peairtach said:


> Are you saying that there were forms of trouble that an unfallen yet sin-bearing Man like Christ could be subject to and others that were necessarily excluded? E.g. although He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and suffered many and various troubles, He couldn't suffer a transient childhood illness or get a blister on his thumb?



Bleeding was obviously a reality. As Earl points out, though, the question is whether it could entail infection. A blister would suggest the regenerative process was working very well.

Chalcedon speaks of Christ being perfect as pertaining to His manhood. The Westminster Confession joins "all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof." Illness is dehumanising, if anything.


----------



## Pergamum

Jesus was circumcised. I assume there was bleeding involved. But this would have been counted as part of his "fulfilling all righteousness" right?

P.s. in the Middle Ages I have read about several Catholic churches having the alleged foreskin of Jesus as a Holy Relic. Very curious history.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Chalcedon speaks of Christ being perfect as pertaining to His manhood. The Westminster Confession joins "all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof." Illness is dehumanising, if anything.



Is not injury from nails dehumanising also? These nails came from out side his body as would disease. Just saying .  Your points in this thread are well recieved and I shall ponder the passage in Acts more.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

armourbearer said:


> Chalcedon speaks of Christ being perfect as pertaining to His manhood. The Westminster Confession joins "all the essential properties and common infirmities thereof." Illness is dehumanising, if anything.



So, what would entail "common infirmities" of humanity?


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Is not injury from nails dehumanising also? These nails came from out side his body as would disease.



The nails came from "wicked hands," thus tracing the evil to its proper moral cause as identified by Scripture. "Disease" would be classified as a "natural" evil, and a judgment of God upon sin.


----------



## MW

Mr. Bultitude said:


> So, what would entail "common infirmities" of humanity?



The usual biblical descriptions by which Christ's full humanity is proven, e.g., hunger, weariness, sorrow, etc. Scripture never suggests sickness was a part of our Lord's personal experience (quite the opposite), nor is it used theologically to establish His full humanity.


----------

