Question about Jesus and Mary

[Khalid]

Has the Catholic Church ever stated whether Jesus and Mary could have ever been sick?

I know they both suffered.

If Jesus was ever sick would that mean that He would be a blemished lamb and therefore not a perfect sacrifice?

Could a sick Mary transfer a pre-fall perfect humanity to Jesus? Was a pre-fall humanity required for Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice?

Did Jesus’ humanity contain BOTH pre-fall and post-fall elements?

I think Jesus suffered but was never sick. I think Mary suffered–I don’t know if she was ever sick.

I know it is Catholic dogma that Jesus was passable–therefore He was capable of suffering. I don’t know about becoming sick. Does anyone know? Have any theologians ever speculated?

1. Yes. (They did suffer.)
2. I believe so. (Sickness would have indicated sin and nullified his sacrifice.)
3. Yes. (Mary was cleansed from original sin, specifically so that Jesus would not inherit it according to the flesh.)
4. Yes. He had none of the blemish of the Fall in him.
5. No. He was purely humanity as humanity could be, and was meant to be, that is, as humanity was created in original justice before the Fall. He had absolutely no post-Fall marring of his constitution. As the Creed says: “Consubstantial with God according to his Divinity, consubstantial with us according to our humanity, and like us in every way except for sin”. The difference between pre- and post-Fall is sin.
6. Of course they suffered, both of them, through the actions of other fallen beings in the world Christ entered, and which Mary was born in to. Neither one was ever sick or suffered through natural (e.g. non-free-will-related) causes, as they were free of the stain of sin, and the wages of sin is death.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

None have ever replied to the main thrust of argumentation: The wages of sin is death, and Mary and Jesus were without actual or original sin, and therefore could not die nor suffer by natural means (this includes sickness, work-as-suffering, and childbirth, along with death, as these were specifically pronounced by God’s own lips in Genesis 3 to be the curse of sin), let alone addressed that, if such is true, not even a miracle could have made Christ or Mary ill, as it would break the laws of logic as much as making a square circle.

If you admit that Jesus could die by violence, why wouldn’t disease be able to kill him? Although you say Jesus could not die by “natural means,” I think this can only be right if you mean that it was not in the nature of the man uncorrupted by sin to die. This is much weaker than to claim he could not die. Jesus suffered starvation in the desert and, judging from the fact that he was able to die by crucifixion, I don’t see why Jesus could not have died if deprived long enough of food. If Jesus could be killed by violence, he could be killed by disease since disease is (at least in many cases) violence against the body by a foreign agent. Similarly, Mary could potentially have died in childbirth since death during childbirth is from harm the child, who is a foreign agent, causes to the mother.

 

[Evan]

I think we need to consider that Jesus was born into a fallen world. So the world had disease, suffering and death. Jesus was incarnate as man and like us in all things except sin. So the effects of this fallen world were experienced by him.

Perhaps disease is part of the fallen world. If the world is fallen and he chooses to enter, then he will experience the world.

If this same Jesus walked with Adam and Eve before the fall in the garden, before the fall; he would not have suffered disease or death in the same way neither Adam or Eve would have.

 

[katholikos12]

This is much weaker than to claim he could not die. Jesus suffered starvation in the desert and, judging from the fact that he was able to die by crucifixion, I don’t see why Jesus could not have died if deprived long enough of food. If Jesus could be killed by violence, he could be killed by disease since disease is (at least in many cases) violence against the body by a foreign agent.

Thing is the scriptures tell us that He gave up His spirit. He could only allow Himself to die after He had suffered enough under the Father’s wrath for our sins.

I think if Christ could have truly died, he would have died multiple times before God’s wrath was satisfied.

First, the sweating of blood is an actual medical condition that has happened to people: result is typically death after it happens. Second, the scourging given by the Romans was often considered a death sentence: 40 lashes was considered an execution, so it is likely that Jesus received 39 since he was not yet sentenced to die, additionally the robes torn off his body and crown of thornes. Third He was so spent from everything someone else had to carry His cross because the Romans were afraid He would die before He was crucified. After all this He was finally crucified.

Jesus could not die unless He gave up His spirit, which is what He did.

 

[lakotak]

All of you have had some wonderful (name removed by moderator)ut, especially on levels that I had not even thought of. Your answers have made me think on deeper levels and I really appreciate this. You answers have actually answered many questions I have had over the years. However, when I posted the original question, actually I intended something on a simple level.

I was wondering if Jesus and Mary could have had the usual childhood maladies, like many of us got chickenpox when we are young. As adults could he and Mary had had fevers, colds etc. Since they were free of Original Sin, I wondered if physical aliments, not man made, could have affected them-diseases, illness, etc.

 

[Evan]

I think you can see, opinions vary. There is no definitive teaching on this topic, only extrapolation from what is taught.

But this kind of question certainly brings out the amature theologian in all of us. It’s now your turn.

Think deeply on the subject, following where the Spirit and the Church leads and see if you can reach a justifiable conclusion.

Put that conclusion here and we will tear it to shreds. That’s the way the forum works

 

[lakotak]

I think you can see, opinions vary. There is no definitive teaching on this topic, only extrapolation from what is taught.

But this kind of question certainly brings out the amature theologian in all of us. It’s now your turn.

**Think deeply on the subject, following where the Spirit and the Church leads and see if you can reach a justifiable conclusion.

Put that conclusion here and we will tear it to shreds. That’s the way the forum works **

Yes, when something is not written in “stone” the forum members do tend to tear at it. However, in doing so many new thoughts and ideas come to light that otherwise would not have. Like a snowball rolling downhill, it picks up more snow to feed its size.

My only thoughts, right or wrong, are this. Since Jesus and Mary were free from original sin, they were in a state like Adam and Eve before the Fall. It is my understanding that diseases and illnesses did not exist in the Garden. So I would think that disease and illness were not a part of their natural life. However, on the other hand, perhaps, it was possible, especially for Jesus since He entered our human condition to experience everything except sin, that he may have allowed Himself or may have been natural, for Him to have been ill. It is interesting to ponder. I am not a debater, so I am only expressing my personal opinions.

 

[Khalid]

If you admit that Jesus could die by violence, why wouldn’t disease be able to kill him? Although you say Jesus could not die by “natural means,” I think this can only be right if you mean that it was not in the nature of the man uncorrupted by sin to die. This is much weaker than to claim he could not die. Jesus suffered starvation in the desert and, judging from the fact that he was able to die by crucifixion, I don’t see why Jesus could not have died if deprived long enough of food. If Jesus could be killed by violence, he could be killed by disease since disease is (at least in many cases) violence against the body by a foreign agent. Similarly, Mary could potentially have died in childbirth since death during childbirth is from harm the child, who is a foreign agent, causes to the mother.

It is violence against the body by a foreign agent without free will. My entire line of argumentation rests on the fact that only fallen actors with free will could have caused Christ to suffer. There’s more thinking behind that argumentation (that without free will can not rebel) as well.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Thing is the scriptures tell us that He gave up His spirit. He could only allow Himself to die after He had suffered enough under the Father’s wrath for our sins.

I doubt that is the significance of the idiom “giving up the ghost.” It seems more likely to just be synonymous with “breathing his last.” Spirit primarily means breath after all.

I think if Christ could have truly died, he would have died multiple times before God’s wrath was satisfied.

What do you think would happen if someone tried to lop of Jesus’s head with a sword before the “appointed hour?” Or do you just think that such a scenario could never actually come about in the first place?

First, the sweating of blood is an actual medical condition that has happened to people: result is typically death after it happens.

Interesting.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2810702/

It is violence against the body by a foreign agent without free will. My entire line of argumentation rests on the fact that only fallen actors with free will could have caused Christ to suffer. There’s more thinking behind that argumentation (that without free will can not rebel) as well.

Why is free will necessary? Why do you think that a man could cause Christ to suffer but not a bacterium?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

To the above poster: recall that Jesus did not die of natural means. He could die by violence alone: he died by violence. Adam and Eve were likewise; they were naturally immortal (only after the sin was the curse pronounced, “Thou art dust, and unto dust shalt thou return”), but violence could have ended their lives. Of course, in Eden, there was no possible source of violence before the Fall. Jesus, entering the world as the Last Adam, obedient even unto death on a cross, where the First Adam had rebelled and caused the world and mankind to become corrupt, was likely to fall to violence (disregarding that he had to in order for God’s plan, and for the Law and the Prophets to be fulfilled, cf. Isaiah 52:13-53:12).

Now, Jesus could not be sick, because he was sinless, and the wages of sins is death (and illness, suffering, work). I believe, theoretically, possibly could have become sick, if he had so wished, being also the All-Powerful God, but I am not certain of this: it could be that he could not have been ill no matter what, because in order to be ill or suffer, one must be toiling under the strain of original sin, which Christ was not, and, therefore, even God’s power could not have made Christ ill, no more than it could cause a triangle to have 188º in it. So, Jesus could not be naturally ill: this is certain. Could he have been made ill by a miracle? This is unknown, but, I, personally, doubt as much, as for him to be made ill at all would require him laboring under original or actual sin, if even for an instant, which is patently absurd; on this view, not even a miracle could make Christ ill, because such is a logical impossibility, and no miracle, no act of God, can break the laws of logic: God’s omnipotence is tied by what is conceivable, and something illogical (a nine-and-one-half-sided square, or pi as a rational number, or creation in both six and eight days) is inconceivable: no amount of power could make such a thing happen in this universe.

This is not dogma, but personal speculation: Jesus and Mary were both personally immortal (thus, Mary was assumed bodily in to heaven alive, as she could not die by natural causes: the Church allows for both beliefs, that she was bodily assumed both alive and resurrected), as they were without sin, and death entered the world through sin, and the wages of sin is death. Adam and Eve were immortal before they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; Christ was the Last Adam, Mary the Last Eve, who had obeyed where the First of their names had failed; therefore, they were not under the curse of death, or work, or pain in childbirth being multiplied, etc.

Where does it say Adam and Eve were immortal? I believe death is the natural end of unaided human nature even without sin.The logic seems a little flawed re wages of sin is death. That doesn’t mean death cannot be caused by other means as well.

Jesus is like us in all things except he did not personally sin against His Father. Therefore natural death, which is is an effect of sin is part of the deal for Jesus too. Its part of that total Kenosis of the Incarnation which made Him like us in all things out of total solidarity with humanity. He was truly human.

So, yes, Jesus aged, got sick, started getting wrinkles and his foreskin didn’t grow back - and neither did it (or his nail clippings) remain incorrupt.

And Mary’s “Dormition” in Eastern Catholicism was always understood to imply death as early icons show - there is sometimes a “little man” in Jesus’s arms which represents Mary’s soul separated from her body. That is the definition of “death” - separation of body and soul. However, tradition clearly holds her body was incorrupt despite the separation - presumably by a singular act of God. That may be why the title “Dormition” seemed more appropriate than “Dead”.

 

[katholikos12]

I doubt that is the significance of the idiom “giving up the ghost.” It seems more likely to just be synonymous with “breathing his last.” Spirit primarily means breath after all.

…

What do you think would happen if someone tried to lop of Jesus’s head with a sword before the “appointed hour?” Or do you just think that such a scenario could never actually come about in the first place?

Fair enough on your first point, but I am unaware of someone “giving up their spirit” anywhere else in the bible. It seems it was taken.

For Jesus? I think since his plan was divine; therefore no one was going to lop off His head. Anyone else? yea I’d be inclined to say that they would die.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What do you think would happen if someone tried to lop of Jesus’s head with a sword before the “appointed hour?”

The assumptions that would make this a sensible statement need to be challenged QNDNNDQDCE.

Those assumptions appear to be extremely mechanistic/rationalist/idealist. It suggests that God knew all the cause-effect scenarios re the Incarnation and timed/placed it so well that there never could be a cause-effect trajectory that would allow your premature death scenario to happen.

Or a display of power would have taken place to stop it happening (by an angel if jesus didn’t see it coming or by Jesus using paranormal abilities if he saw it coming).

And there are other scenarios. How many unknown but true Incarnations actually took place before it played out as the Father wanted it to? We will never know. It cannot be answered.

And who is to say there could not be many variations on a theme all equally acceptable to the Father. Jesus could have probably been stoned to death like Stephen rather than crucified and still been the lauded and redeeming Messsiah. of course things would be a bit different today - we would have a carving above the altar of Jesus’s broken body and smashed in face not a cross.

But, as I suggest, your question already suggests you hold to assumptions that are untenable .

 

[Khalid]

If some one had lopped off Jesus’ head with a sword, that would have been the atoning death instead of the Crucifixion. God was incarnate once and once only, and nothing can move except according to the will and providence of God.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

If some one had lopped off Jesus’ head with a sword, that would have been the atoning death instead of the Crucifixion. God was incarnate once and once only, and nothing can move except according to the will and providence of God.

Khalid is this a question you are putting up for discussion or is it De Cathedra and you are telling us ?

If it is a question then there is an obvious problem…
Accidentally getting one’s head lopped off by an anonymous soldier having a bad-hair day has no sacrificial value or meaning that even Jesus’s followers would appreciate. Even myself as a Christian 2000 years later has difficulty spotting it . All too ethereal and ignoring of human realities. While it could be said that the very act of God becoming a Man is a “sacrifice” for a deity (John’s Gospel makes this clear) … the actual communication of this to real individuals requires the playing out of a visible “human drama” if it is to change hearts and minds. A man has no greater love than to lay down his life for his friends…this is the completing/crowning act of Jesus eathly life and incarnative sacrifice. Accidental death doesn’t seem to do that.

If Jesus rose after having been killed in a meaningless accident…well I still don’t think that would have been understood let alone be powerful enough to build a Church. Redemption isn’t an abstract mechanical recipe, nor is it a recipe with just one ingredient (that a God is made Man and then dies (even in vitro).)

Obviously God could have redeemed us without the incarnation, maybe a miraculous apparition. But even from the OT, in hindsight, it is clear that was not the way the Father chose to go. If that is the way it goes then a real Incarnation needs all the elements I have outlined to be real and in accord with the plan inherent from the Fall of Adam as we now understand it.

As I say, if you think the above then your present theology seems to have some serious flaws. Far too Platonically (as in Plato’s philosophy) mechanistic and ahuman for my liking. But thats just me .

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

BlueHorizon, I am not sure in your post whether you are expressing what you believe or taking my assumptions to their (absurd) conclusion. Can you explain your unmechanistic/irrationalist/cynical interpretation?

Fair enough on your first point, but I am unaware of someone “giving up their spirit” anywhere else in the bible. It seems it was taken.

“Giving up the ghost” in English simply means to expire. I can think of a few examples from Acts that use the same idiom. The Greek might be a different matter. I do not know that language. The verb used in the three examples from Acts of the Apostles is different from that used in Mark and Luke though they appear to be similar in meaning. Matthew and John use a similarly structured idiom but different verbs. Interestingly, the King James translators render Acts 5:10 concerning Sapphira the same as Matthew 27:50 (“yielded up the ghost”) despite the different Greek expressions. The King James translators evidently did not see any distinction between any of them.

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. (Acts 5:5)

ἐξέψυξεν (breathed his last)

Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (Acts 5:10)

ἐξέψυξεν

And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. (Acts 12:23)

ἐξέψυξεν

And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. (Mark 15:37)

ἐξέπνευσεν (breathed his last)

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23:46)

ἐξέπνευσεν

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. (Matthew 27:50)

ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα (yielded up his spirit)

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (John 19:30)

παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα (yielded up his spirit)

I would not have guessed from the English that these expressions meant by themselves anything other than “to die.” However, such illustrious commentators as Jerome and Augustine evidently believe these expressions used in the Gospels indicate a voluntary expiration so I will defer to their judgment.

If some one had lopped off Jesus’ head with a sword, that would have been the atoning death instead of the Crucifixion. God was incarnate once and once only, and nothing can move except according to the will and providence of God.

I guess what I am asking is that whether Jesus’s neck had it in itself to be cut through, which you seem to think is possible. Then did Jesus’ body have it in itself to become sick and die (if that were “according to the will and providence of God”)?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

BlueHorizon, I am not sure in your post whether you are expressing what you believe or taking my assumptions to their (absurd) conclusion. Can you explain your unmechanistic/irrationalist/cynical interpretation?

QNDNNDQDCE I just took your opinion at face value and analysed what it directly implied - I wasn’t intentionally parodying it. I do not think I took an absurd meaning from what you wrote. Your approach to salvation history is not uncommon but I believe it to be seriously flawed for the reasons stated.

I have no clearer analysis or explanation/“interpretation” re what you wrote other than what I’ve explained already sorry .

Do you find the possibility that Jesus could have been stoned to death instead of crucified absurd?

 

[Khalid]

BlueHorizon, I am not sure in your post whether you are expressing what you believe or taking my assumptions to their (absurd) conclusion. Can you explain your unmechanistic/irrationalist/cynical interpretation?

“Giving up the ghost” in English simply means to expire. I can think of a few examples from Acts that use the same idiom. The Greek might be a different matter. I do not know that language. The verb used in the three examples from Acts of the Apostles is different from that used in Mark and Luke though they appear to be similar in meaning. Matthew and John use a similarly structured idiom but different verbs. Interestingly, the King James translators render Acts 5:10 concerning Sapphira the same as Matthew 27:50 (“yielded up the ghost”) despite the different Greek expressions. The King James translators evidently did not see any distinction between any of them.

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. (Acts 5:5)

ἐξέψυξεν (breathed his last)

Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. (Acts 5:10)

ἐξέψυξεν

And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. (Acts 12:23)

ἐξέψυξεν

And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. (Mark 15:37)

ἐξέπνευσεν (breathed his last)

And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Luke 23:46)

ἐξέπνευσεν

Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. (Matthew 27:50)

ἀφῆκεν τὸ πνεῦμα (yielded up his spirit)

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (John 19:30)

παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα (yielded up his spirit)

I would not have guessed from the English that these expressions meant by themselves anything other than “to die.” However, such illustrious commentators as Jerome and Augustine evidently believe these expressions used in the Gospels indicate a voluntary expiration so I will defer to their judgment.

I guess what I am asking is that whether Jesus’s neck had it in itself to be cut through, which you seem to think is possible. Then did Jesus’ body have it in itself to become sick and die (if that were “according to the will and providence of God”)?

The more I have pondered the question, I believe not even a miracle could have caused Jesus to become ill, as it would have implied he was under original sin, since that which he created, without free will (i.e. viruses and bacteria) would attack him, in order to do such. His neck could have been cut through by a sword, wielded by a human, angelic, or demonic attacker.

My contention is thus: Agents with free will could rebel against and even harm their incarnate Creator, all other things being equal (no miraculous interventions). Creations without free will, including microbes, animals, and elements, could not.

Following my logic through, it would appear that a sword merely falling off a rack could not have injured Jesus, which seems a bit absurd based on gut feeling (e.g. it feels too close to a form of Docetism), but, on further inspection, does not seem absurd logically.

However, I will state none of this dogmatically, and I would state much more dogmatically, that, under normal circumstances, Jesus could not have become ill; I will state only tentatively, and subject to drastic revision, that a miracle of God could not cause it, as I do not wish to presume of the power of God, by possibly working out reasoning from poor analogy with other limitations of God’s power (e.g. the aforementioned four-sided triangle).

And Jesus most certainly could have been stoned to death. It is the Incarnation, and, also, in tension with the Incarnation, the Death and Resurrection, which redeem us. The specific method of death matters not, insofar as I can tell.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

The more I have pondered the question, I believe not even a miracle could have caused Jesus to become ill, as it would have implied he was under original sin.

Khalid, Jesus was clearly like us in all things but **personal **sin. Original sin is **not **personal sin therefore there is no reason why Jesus would not share its non-personal effects in solidarity with us. This is where your logic fails and why you come to conclusions that look to be two or three bridges too far.

Your phrase “(not) under original sin” is far too vague and loose to rest the burden of your very heavy conclusions . It seems to need far deeper thinking-through than this.

 

[Rosinante]

Was it possible for Jesus and Mary to ever be sick or have a disease?

I’m inclined to believe that both could certainly become sick. Seems to me that to believe otherwise, would be to deny Chirst’s actual humanity (and by extension, and to a greater degree, to His mother).

Didn’t Yeshua fast for 40 days and 40 nights in the dessert, whence he was tempted by Satan?

Didn’t he eat and drink with the Apostles, and many others?

What need would He have for physical nourshiment, if His body were divine?

What suffering would He have actually endured, if His body were not truly Human?

Likewise, it seems to follow that His Human body would be vulnerable to infirmity.

Though I do get where you’re coming from–afterall, He cured so many infirmities of others, by their own faith–seems He could probably do the same on His own account.

 

[LittleHannah]

Well, Scripture says Jesus was like us in all things but sin. All things must actually mean all things. But isn’t sickness and death on account of Original Sin? Or is it just death? What about sickness? Of course, Jesus did die to take away out sin, so he probably got sick, too. We’ll have no way of ever knowing.