With frigid temperatures gripping much of the country confining much of America to the indoors, flu season has fully blossomed. In response, many are scrambling to get flu shots so as to build up an immunity to the virus before it hits them. Setting aside the question of the effectiveness of flu shots in general, I would like to focus on immunity to the flu. Specifically, to ask whether Our Lord was immune to the flu during His earthly sojourn. Did Jesus get the flu?
While some of us who are theology geeks might consider it “cool” to speculate on these types of questions, they appear to have little additional spiritual value. It could be grouped among the other useless musings of the medieval theologians; musings such as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is hard to imagine, however, that Saint Thomas Aquinas would spend so much time on theoretical questions without them also having spiritual value as well (like he does for this particular question in ST III q.14). Questions like this one have value because they put the right amount of flesh on the doctrine of the Incarnation. We can get so stuck on the idea of the Incarnation, that we forget it is first and foremost a real event touching even down to our own time. Exercises such as these help us to meet Our Lord in the flesh with the right proportion of familiarity and wonder.
Like Us?
Our initial reaction might be to say, Our Lord was human, “like us in all things but sin” (Heb 4:15) and so, while He may never have caught the flu specifically, He almost certainly got sick. Being fully human would mean He was subject to all kinds of bodily limitations in His human nature, sickness included.
The problem with this hasty response is that “except sin” marks a rather broad exception. Most of the time we take it to mean that He didn’t do anything wrong. That is, of course, true, but it does not fully capture the broad scope of the effects of sin, especially personal sin.
To properly frame the issue, let us make what is an important, albeit often misunderstood distinction. Death in man, because of his composition of matter and spirit, is natural. It was only a privilege that God gave to Adam and Eve in their state of innocence that they were exempt from suffering and death. Put another way, man is naturally mortal and it is only by a preternatural gift that the first man and woman could avoid it. Being “like us in all things but sin” means that Christ took to Himself a passible nature that included a body that was subject to death and suffering. Being “like us in all things but sin” means that His suffering and death were a natural consequence of becoming human and not as a result of Original Sin.
To be absolutely clear the Son, when He took the passible human nature to Himself, was under no necessity to do so, but instead did it voluntarily. He could just as easily have prevented suffering and death, but He chose to endure them for three reasons. First, and foremost, He did so that He might make satisfaction for our sins. The second was so that He might show Himself to be truly human. His human nature was a sacrament of His divinity in that it was the sign that made visible the reality that He was the Son of God and thus Our Redeemer. Finally, He did so as to leave us an example of heroic patience. In short, He did so because it was necessary to complete His mission as Redeemer.
By focusing on the fact that Our Lord willed to suffer, rather than to be the passive victim that Original Sin turns us all into, we can move advance the ball down the field towards a definitive answer. Our Lord suffered only insofar as it was necessary to make satisfaction for the common sin of human nature. his was provided that the defects He was subject to did not interfere with His mission as Redeemer.
This helps us to understand why Our Lord experienced hunger, thirst and exhaustion. In order to make satisfaction for the common sin Our Lord would have to voluntarily assume these common penalties that were imposed on mankind because of Original Sin. St. John Damascene calls these natural, but not degrading affliction. This also helps us to rule out a few things.
What Our Lord Didn’t Suffer
First, He did not suffer anything as a result of any hereditary defect. His constitution was perfect and He was not even prone to certain illnesses. Second, He would not have suffered any illnesses that would be an indirect result of personal sin—things such as heart disease, diabetes or liver disease. In summary He did not take on particular sufferings that afflict particular men.
So then, what about the flu and other illnesses? Since the flu is not a common punishment meted out to human nature in general, then Our Lord would not have suffered it. One might immediately object that neither was scourging and being crowned with thorns. Those sufferings were willed because they atoned for the common sins of mankind, especially as they relate to sorrow for our sins and unwillingness to do penance. Each of the sufferings of His Passion makes these sins visible so to speak and thus cry out for our participation. These sufferings were a part of His mission as Redeemer whereas the Flu and other such illnesses would have hampered His mission, rendering Him unable to carry out good works.
Our Lord, because His soul was filled with wisdom and grace, could not suffer as a result of failures on either count. Our Lord, filled with wisdom, would have known how to avoid illness, even if He were subject to it. Likewise, filled with grace in His humanity and able to heal the sick, He would not have been subject to sickness Himself.