Paul Denies That Jesus Came In The Flesh

The article argues that the Apostle Paul taught a docetic view of Jesus, meaning that Jesus only appeared to have human flesh but was not truly human. This perspective contradicts traditional Christian orthodoxy, which holds that Jesus was fully God and fully man. The author claims that Paul’s writings laid the groundwork for later heresies like Marcionism, which denied Jesus’ true humanity.

Key Arguments

1. Paul’s Alleged Docetism

• Romans 8:3 & Philippians 2:7:

  • Paul describes Jesus as coming in the “likeness” (Greek: homoiōmati) of sinful flesh (Rom. 8:3) and the “likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7).

  • The article argues that this implies Jesus did not truly possess human flesh but only appeared to.

• Original Sin Theology:

  • Paul taught that all human flesh is inherently sinful (Romans 5).

  • If Jesus had real human flesh, he would (by Paul’s logic) be tainted by sin—a problem Marcion sought to avoid by denying Jesus’ true humanity.

2. Connection to Marcionism

• Marcion (144 AD):

  • A devoted follower of Paul who claimed Jesus only appeared human (“flesh and yet not flesh, man and not yet man”).

  • Marcion believed Paul alone had the true gospel, rejecting the authority of the Twelve Apostles.

• John’s Warning (1 John 4:2-3):

  • John condemns those who deny Jesus came “in the flesh”—a likely reference to early docetic heresies influenced by Paul’s teachings.

  • The article suggests John was indirectly criticizing Paul’s theology, even though Marcion had not yet emerged.

3. Scholarly Defenses & Rebuttals

• Vincent’s Word Studies (Christian Scholar):

  • Acknowledges that Paul’s use of “likeness” implies Jesus did not share sinful human nature.

  • Tries to argue Paul wasn’t denying Jesus’ humanity, but the article counters:

    • If all human flesh is sinful (per Paul), and Jesus only appeared in “likeness” of sinful flesh, then he wasn’t truly human.

• Paul’s Dualism (Spirit vs. Flesh):

  • Paul associates “flesh” with sin (Galatians 5:16-20), making it impossible (in his theology) for Jesus to have real human flesh without being sinful.

4. Implications for Christianity

• Contradiction with Jesus’ Humanity:

  • Traditional Christianity insists Jesus was fully human (e.g., ate, slept, suffered).

  • If Paul taught docetism, his writings undermine this core doctrine.

• Marcion’s Legacy:

  • Marcionite churches thrived for centuries, spreading Paul’s docetic views.

  • The article suggests orthodox Christianity only defeated Marcionism by suppressing Paul’s original teachings.

Conclusion

The article concludes that Paul’s theology inherently denies Jesus’ true humanity, making him a docetist. This view influenced later heretics like Marcion and contradicts both Jewish Scripture (which never taught inherent fleshly sinfulness) and Jesus’ own physical reality.

Final Quote:

“Paul was completely docetic. That is how Marcion formed his doctrine: straight from Paul.”

Key Takeaway:

The article presents a radical critique of Paul, accusing him of distorting the nature of Christ by denying His true humanity—a view that later fueled major heresies and conflicts in early Christianity.

Most Christians will be shocked to learn that Paul taught Jesus did not have truly human flesh.

Before we address this point, let’s distinguish this next point from what has preceded. This `human flesh’ issue is a completely independent ground to evaluate Paul. John could be talking about Paul on the issue of leaving their group (1 John 2:19) and not listening to the twelve (1 John 4:6), but not be addressing Paul on the `human flesh issue’ in 1 John 4:2. One point does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

That said, let’s investigate whether this issue of `human flesh’ in 1 John 4:2 applies to Paul as well.

To understand what teaching John is opposing when he faults as deceivers those who say “Jesus did not have human flesh,” one must have a little schooling in church history. We today assume John is talking about people who say Jesus came in an imaginary way. This is not John’s meaning.

The heresy that John is referring to is the claim Jesus did not have truly human flesh. Marcion’s doctrine is an example of this viewpoint. Marcion came on the scene of history in approximately 144 A.D. John’s epistle is written earlier, and thus is not actually directed at Marcion. Marcion helps us, however, to identify the precursor heresy that John is attacking. Marcion’s doctrines are well-known. Marcion taught salvation by faith alone, the Law of Moses was abrogated, and he insisted Paul alone had the true Gospel, to the exclusion of the twelve apostles. Upon whom did Marcion claim his authority that Jesus only came in the appearance of human flesh? It was obviously Paul.

Marcion said, according to Tertullian’s derisive quote, that Jesus “was not what he appeared to be…[saying He was] flesh and yet not flesh, man and not yet man….” (Tertullian, On Marcion, 3.8.) [See Carm.org version, “incarnate without being flesh, human without being man” On Marcion 3.8.15]

Marcion was not denying Jesus came and looked like a man. Rather, Marcion was claiming that Jesus’ flesh could not be human in our sense. Why? What did Marcion mean?

Marcion was a devout Paulinist, as mentioned before. Paul taught the doctrine that all human flesh inherits the original sin of Adam. (Romans chapter 5.) If Jesus truly had human flesh, Marcion must have been concerned that Jesus would have come in a human flesh which Paul taught was inherently sinful due to the taint of original sin. Incidentally, Paul’s ideas on human flesh being inherently sinful was contrary to Hebrew Scriptures which taught all flesh was clean unless some practice or conduct made it unclean. (See, e.g., Lev. 15:2 et seq.) In light of Paul’s new doctrine, Marcion wanted to protect Jesus from being regarded as inherently sinful. Thus, Marcion was denying Jesus had truly human flesh.

Marcion’s teaching on Jesus’ flesh is known by scholars as docetism. The word docetism comes from a Greek work that means appear. Docetism says Jesus only appeared to come in human flesh. Docetism also became popular later among Gnostics who taught salvation by knowledge and mysteries. (Marcion taught salvation by faith in Jesus, so he is not Gnostic in the true sense.) The Gnostics were never the threat to Christianity that the Marcionites represented. Gnostics were simply writers who had no churches. The Marcionites, on the other hand, were successful in establishing a competing Paul-oriented Christian church system in most major cities that rivaled the churches founded by the twelve apostles. The Marcionites had church buildings, clergy, regular services, etc.

It was in this context that John’s letter from the 90s A.D., in particular 1 John 4:2, must be understood as condemning docetism. John’s epistle became crucial later in defeating Marcionism. This victory did not decisively happen until the 400s. Marcionite churches survived even into the eighth century A.D., but they remained weak. They later even spawned the Armenian Paulicians. This group endured into the 1200s.

However, a mystery remains. John in the 90s A.D. is writing 50 years prior to Marcion’s appearance on the stage of world history.

Then of whom was John speaking? Was it Paul who Marcion claimed as his mentor in all things? Did Paul teach docetism?

Yes. Heretical docetism is found expressly in Paul. For Paul writes Jesus only appeared to be a man and to come in sinful human flesh. (Rom. 8:3 “likeness” or “appearance” of “sinful human flesh;” 1 see also Phil. 2:7 “appeared to be a man”.) 2

Specialists in ancient Greek who are Christian struggle to find no heresy in Paul’s words in both passages. Vincent is one of the leading Christian scholars who has done a Greek language commentary on the entire New Testament. Here is how Vincent’s Word Studies tries to fashion an escape from Paul uttering heresy. First, Vincent explains Paul literally says in Romans 8:3 that Jesus came in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Vincent then says had Paul not used the word likeness, Paul would be saying Jesus had come in “the sin of flesh,” which “would [then] have represented Him as partaking of sin.” Thus, Vincent says Paul does not deny Jesus came in the flesh (i.e., Paul is not denying Jesus’ humanity), but rather Paul insists that Jesus came only in the likeness of sinful flesh.

My answer to Vincent is simple: you have proved my case. Vincent is conceding the Greek wordhomomati (which translates as likeness) means Jesus did not truly come in the flesh of sin. Vincent is intentionally ignoring what this means in Paul’s theology. To Paul, all flesh is sinful. There is no such thing as flesh that is holy in Paul’s outlook. For Paul, you are either in the Spirit or in the flesh. The latter he equates with sin. (Gal. 5:5,16-20.) So Paul is saying Jesus only appeared to come in sinful human flesh. In Paul’s theology of original sin (Rom. ch. 5), this is the same thing as saying Jesus did not come in truly human flesh. It only appeared to be human (sinful) flesh. Paul was completely docetic. That is how Marcion formed his doctrine: straight from Paul.

Furthermore, when you compare Romans 8:3 to Philippians 2:7, there is no mistaking Paul’s viewpoint. In Philippians 2:7, Paul this time says Jesus came in the “likeness (homomati) of men,” not flesh of sin. Following Vincent’s previous agreement on homomati‘s meaning, this verse says Jesus did not truly come as a man. He just appeared as if he was a man. Vincent again struggles desperately to offer an interpretation of Philippians 2:7 that avoids Paul being a heretic. Vincent ends up conceding “likeness of men expresses the fact that His Mode of manifestation resembled what men are.” When you strip away Vincent’s vague words, Vincent concedes Paul teaches Jesus only appeared to be a man. Thus, he was not truly a man. This means Paul was 100% docetic. Listen to John’s evaluation of the false prophets:

His spirit [does not] say that Jesus Christ had a truly human flesh (sarx, flesh). (1 Jn 4:2.)

Was Marcion really that far from Paul? As Tertullian summarized Marcion’s view, we hear the clear echo of Paul. Marcion taught Jesus “was not what he appeared to be…[saying He was] flesh and yet not flesh, man and not yet man….” (Tertullian, On Marcion, 3.8.)

More articles exposing Paul as a false teacher here.

Please consider reposting or linking to this article. Thank you!! RD 🙂