Yes, Jesus Was Nailed to the Cross. It Matters.

Around the Easter season each year a few articles or videos appear in popular publications that promote skepticism about central aspects of the Christian faith. It’s no surprise that the New Yorker or New York Times publishes skeptics denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus or some other vital aspect of Christianity. Those sorts of stories get clicks, especially when everyone’s talking about Jesus.

What’s more troubling, though, is when self-described Christians spend their time trying to debunk Christianity. That’s what we have with a recent article from Christianity Today.

Just Asking Questions

Luca Signorelli, The Crucifixion, c. 1504/1504. Public Domain.

On April 14, 2025, Christianity Today published a journalistic article by Daniel Silliman that doesn’t exactly make an argument, but it opens the door to skepticism about the details surrounding Christ’s crucifixion. The article opens by stating, “The Bible doesn’t say Jesus was nailed to the cross.”

What follows is an assertion that the crucifixion is really important, but that that it may not have involved nails. It explains that there are historical examples of victims being tied to crosses at other points in Roman history. Moreover, an Episcopal priest, Fleming Routledge, wrote a “very widely praise book” that says that there might not have been nails involved in the crucifixion. Therefore, we shouldn’t assume that there were nails. It’s ok to have questions.

On the surface, this seems like the sort of article that sometimes needs to get written so we don’t import assumptions into biblical texts. There are a lot of cultural images around Jesus’s life that aren’t actually in Scripture. For example, it’s not clear that the place of Jesus’s birth was the sort of stable often depicted in our nativity scenes. Contrary to the picture on many Christmas cards, the Bible doesn’t say that Mary rode into Bethlehem on a donkey. We often make assumptions about details that aren’t in the Bible.

Yet those examples reflect legitimate questions about translation of words or ways that people have imagined scenes unfolding. When we question Mary riding on a donkey, we’re not denying what the Bible clearly says: Mary went with Joseph to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4-5). We affirm what Scripture says and are open to questioning places that imagination has filled in the gaps. That’s what good scholars and teachers do.

Logical Two-Step

But, let’s be clear: This Christianity Today article isn’t pushing on cultural accretions to the crucifixion story. It’s an attempt to undermine what Scripture plainly says.

In John 20:25 Thomas states, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.” That’s a pretty solid biblical basis for believing that Jesus was nailed to the cross.

Yet even that obvious implication doesn’t lead to acceptance. Silliman writes:

“Maybe that’s proof that Christ was crucified with nails, García [the expert] said. But he isn’t completely convinced. Jesus doesn’t explicitly say ‘nail,’ and the Bible does not say Thomas touches Christ’s hands or his feet. Many scholars think John was written later—perhaps after crucifixion had become more common, García said.”

Notice the skeptical two-step here. (1) First, argue that Scripture doesn’t directly say that the Romans nailed Jesus to the cross. That’s technically true. (2) Second, argue that the text that any rational human would accept as evidence of Jesus being nailed to the cross may well have been fabricated. That’s a huge leap.

But what makes this even more caustic is the attempt to minimize the significance of what has just been asserted.

Caustic Skepticism

At the end of the article, Silliman claims , “Answering the question of whether there were nails may not really matter.”

Oh, but it does matter.

Jesus was pierced for our transgressions (Isaiah 53:5). That prophecy certainly includes the spear going into Jesus’s side on the cross. But Psalm 22:16 was also fulfilled on the cross: “They have pierced my hands and feet.” This is the same Psalm that Jesus quoted on the cross in the cry of dereliction, “My God, my god, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46; Mk 15:34) The fulfillment of these prophecies in the death of Jesus is central to the Christian faith.

When you start to pick at the web of Christian theology, it tends to unravel pretty quickly. That’s why, as J. Gresham Machen argued, Liberalism is really a different religion than Christianity.

Additionally, when we start to pick and choose which bits of Scripture we actually believe, it turns out that not much gets left over. This article is a perfect example of the pattern that critical scholars typically follow.

And, in fact, it’s a pattern nearly as old as humanity: “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” Well, no, but what he did say wasn’t unclear.

Sometimes slippery slopes are real and we don’t have to check every slope out to verify how slick it is, especially when we see the carnage at the bottom of the hill.

This is skepticism for its own sake. It’s a dangerous habit for Christians to adopt.

Imperious Ignorance

This skeptical approach to Scripture is what Michael Ovey calls imperious ignorance. In a column in Themelios, he describes a form of disagreement based on a claim of uncertainty. It’s not “direct disagreement but something more oblique. [It’s] a disagreement that [takes] the form of declaring that the passages [are] not clear.”

Imperious ignorance is more often employed by scholars on hot button issues like the ethics of homosexuality, the legitimacy of same-sex marriage, and the propriety of females functioning as pastors. The text clearly says something, but rather than try to wrestle with it or deny it outright (which is more common than is should be), it’s easier to simply claim that it’s unclear.

Why would a self-described Christian do this?

First, it is essential for skeptics within doctrinally delineated settings to maintain their foothold. In this case, Gordon College, where García teaches, is coded as evangelical. Their statement of faith asserts that the Bible was “free from error” in the original manuscripts.

Though García is denying the clear evidence of Scripture—in contrast to the college’s statement of faith—he does it under the cover of academic rigor. He’s just asking questions. Thus, he can still claim to believe that the Bible is true even though he doubts what it says.

Second, it’s a useful tactic for those seeking to revise Christian doctrine because it puts them in the place of the humble victim. When people point out the obvious to them, they can just say, “I don’t think that’s clear.” To prove your point, you’d have to overcome obstinate skepticism, which is impossible.

Another implication in this tactic is that confidence someone may have about a reading is a form of arrogance or “fundamentalism.” The skeptic is being “humble” because they are “just asking questions.” No actual justification for the skeptical reading need be given, because uncertainty is a cardinal virtue for revisionists and certainty about the obvious is a deadly sin.

Notably, in Silliman’s article, he never gives any evidence that Jesus wasn’t nailed to the cross. There is no argument why John 20:25 is in error. There is no reason given for the author of John to make up a fact. It’s skepticism for its own sake in an attempt to undermine the authority of Scripture.

It's tragic that during Holy Week Christianity Today published an article seeking to undermine Scripture’s account of the crucifixion. There’s no reason to doubt that Jesus was nailed to the cross. Ultimately, I trust what Scripture says about Jesus’s crucifixion because I also trust what it says about his resurrection. And that’s what we should be celebrating this week.