Docetism was an early Christian heresy that taught that Jesus only seemed to be human, and that his physical body was an illusion. The word Docetism comes from the Greek word “dokein” which means “to seem.” Docetists believed that Jesus was divine but that he only appeared to become incarnate as a human. They taught that God cannot suffer and die, so Jesus only appeared to take on human flesh and suffer crucifixion. However, his physical body was not real according to Docetist thought.
This theology developed in the first few centuries after Christ’s death and resurrection and was viewed as heretical by most early Christian leaders. Docetism undermined the Christian belief that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. By denying Jesus’ real incarnation, Docetists rejected the belief that God actually took on human nature and lived as a man. This also meant that according to Docetism, Jesus did not actually die on the cross. For most Christians, Jesus’ death was essential for the atonement of sins. The Docetist view that Christ only appeared to die challenged the core of Christian salvation theology.
One of the earliest mentions of Docetic beliefs appears in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch in the early 2nd century. He condemned those who denied that Jesus had a real physical body. Other early Christian writers like Irenaeus of Lyons also wrote against Docetist teachings. Irenaeus contended that Jesus must have had a real physical body in order to redeem humanity. By the middle of the 2nd century, Docetism had developed into a fairly sizable sect. However, it declined in strength and eventually died out even as Nicene Christianity became the established orthodoxy of the Roman Empire in the 4th century. Nevertheless, Docetic ideas have continued to crop up periodically throughout Christian history.
There were a few main biblical passages that early Christian leaders used to refute Docetism. These included verses that emphasized Jesus was born as a human baby and subject to human development (Luke 2:52), that he suffered physically (Luke 22:44), and that the risen Christ stated clearly that he had flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). Additionally, 1 John 4:2-3 indicates that those who do not confess Jesus came in the flesh have the spirit of antichrist. Such verses clearly go against the teachings of Docetic thought.
The origins of Docetism are not entirely clear, but many connect its rise to the influx of Gnostic and dualistic philosophies into early Christianity. Gnostics held spirit to be entirely good and matter entirely evil. Some taught that the spiritual Christ could not take on corrupt physical matter. This meshed with Platonist philosophy that believed the divine essence was completely immutable and could not take on human attributes. Such philosophies likely influenced the development of Docetic notions.
Docetism took various different forms and offshoots in its early centuries. However, a few key Docetic teachers and teachings left a mark on the movement. One influential Docetist was Saturninus of Antioch who lived in the early 2nd century. He taught that the Heavenly Father was unknown and invisible. The God of the Jews was considered an inferior being who had created the corrupt physical world. Saturninus claimed that Christ was a divine savior sent by the Heavenly Father who had no real human body but only appeared as a man.
Another major form of Docetism was found in Marcionism which arose in the mid-2nd century. Marcion of Sinope promoted a strongly dualistic theology that rejected connections between the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus Christ. He affirmed Jesus only appeared to be incarnated as human and did not actually suffer. The body of Christ on the cross was not a real physical body according to Marcion’s teaching. This docetic Christology allowed Marcion to separate Christianity from Jewish heritage and what he viewed as the inferior Old Testament God.
Later variations of Docetism developed Gnostic mythology further. Seeds of this myth appear in infancy gospels from the late 2nd to 3rd century such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. These Apocryphal texts present Jesus performing miracles as a superpowered child who is only pretending to be human. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas relates Jesus striking down a boy who offends him, then resurrecting the boy to erase any recollection of the event. This portrays a docetic view of Christ masquerading as human while wielding divine power and authority.
In the 3rd century, a teacher named Mani arose teaching a dualistic mix of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Gnosticism. His followers, called Manichaeans, saw him as the promised Paraclete. Manichaeism incorporated Docetic views of Jesus Christ along with reincarnation and concepts of cosmic dualism between darkness and light. Manichaean writings such as the Kephalaia present Jesus as manifesting illusionary physical form much like the heavenly realms and beings that only appeared to be materially created. Several later medieval heretical sects seem to have absorbed docetic and Manichaean notions about Christ.
Various early Christian apocryphal texts also show docetic tendencies in their portrayals of Jesus. The Acts of John contains prayers and a hymn that emphasize Christ leaving behind his physical corrupted form to return to glory. The Second Treatise of the Great Seth presents Jesus tricking the Romans into crucifying Simon of Cyrene instead of him after he swapped physical appearance with Simon. Such stories deny the real death of Christ on the cross. The Acts of Peter is another text that encourages asceticism and glorifies the non-physical spiritual body over the flesh.
While Docetism was rejected as heresy by imperial Christianity in the 4th century, Docetic concepts continued to influence occasional heterodox sects and movements. In medieval Europe, the Cathars were dualists who saw the material world as evil. Some Cathar sects taught that Jesus never took on a real human body but only appeared as a spirit. Various guru-based new religious movements through history have also incorporated Docetic notions of Jesus along with Hindu, Buddhist, and New Age beliefs.
Though mainstream Christianity has consistently opposed Docetic Christology, its popularity early on does speak to the theological conundrum of how an immutable divine being could take on human flesh susceptible to suffering and death. The tension between Jesus’ complete humanity and complete divinity led many early Christians to posit that Christ’s physical form was an illusion rather than a real incarnation. This docetic resolution preserves divine attributes while sacrificing Jesus’ full humanity. It ultimately fails though to reconcile God’s transcendence and immanence in the incarnated Christ. The persistent return of Docetic theology points to an ongoing need for Christians to clearly articulate and defend how exactly the Son of God embodied frail dust while remaining eternal Spirit.