(OPINION) On the Monday of Holy Week 2025, Christianity Today published an article titled “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?” that sparked significant backlash among readers and Christian scholars.

The piece, written by news editor Daniel Silliman, cited Gordon College professor Jeffrey P. Arroyo García, who suggested that Roman soldiers might have used ropes instead of nails during Jesus’ crucifixion.

This claim ignited a firestorm on social media, with critics arguing that the article undermined the biblical account and historical evidence.

In response, Christianity Today issued an apology and revised the article to reaffirm the traditional narrative. This article examines the controversy, the apology, and the broader implications, drawing on multiple news sources.

The original Christianity Today article explored the historical context of Roman crucifixion, quoting Arroyo García’s theory that ropes could have been used to secure Jesus to the cross.

This suggestion clashed with the Gospel accounts, particularly John 20:25, where the disciple Thomas references “the nail marks in his hands” as evidence of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Critics, including Talbot School of Theology professor Gary Manning, quickly pointed to this scripture as definitive proof that nails were used.

Manning wrote a rebuttal column for Church Leaders titled “Yes, Jesus Was Crucified With Nails,” emphasizing the biblical text and historical records of Roman crucifixion practices.

Social media platforms amplified the backlash, with many Christians accusing the article of questioning the inerrancy of Scripture.

The timing—during Holy Week, a period of intense reflection on Jesus’ death and resurrection—heightened the sensitivity of the issue.

Readers expressed disappointment with Christianity Today, a publication known for its evangelical perspective, for entertaining a theory perceived as speculative and contrary to Christian doctrine.

On Tuesday, April 22, 2025, Daniel Silliman issued a public apology for the article. In his statement, he acknowledged the oversight, writing, “My article implicitly called into question the inerrancy of Scripture.

In my eagerness to explore the historical context of Christ’s death, I missed that, and I’m sorry.” Silliman further reflected on his intent, noting that he had been contemplating the practical and theological significance of the crucifixion but failed to anticipate the article’s impact.

Christianity Today also updated the original article to include a clarification: “This article has been revised to clarify that Scripture, including the Gospel of John, indicates that Jesus was crucified with nails and that Christianity Today, along with Christian scholars and theologians throughout church history, affirms that account.”

This revision aimed to align the publication with the traditional Christian understanding and address the concerns raised by readers.

The controversy highlighted the tension between historical inquiry and theological fidelity within Christian scholarship. While Arroyo García’s theory may have been intended as a historical hypothesis, it was perceived as challenging the authority of Scripture.

Gary Manning’s response emphasized that Roman crucifixion typically involved nails, as evidenced by archaeological findings, such as the 1968 discovery of a crucified man’s heel bone pierced with a nail.

Manning argued that Thomas’ reference to “nail marks” in John 20:25 would have been nonsensical if ropes were commonly used.

Other Christian scholars echoed this view. An article from The Christian Post noted that theologians across denominations reaffirmed the use of nails, citing both biblical texts and historical records.

The publication quoted a pastor who stated, “The Bible is clear, and the physical evidence of crucifixion supports it. Suggesting ropes feels like an unnecessary departure from what we know.”

The incident raised questions about the role of Christian media in balancing academic exploration with doctrinal sensitivity.

Christianity Today, as a leading evangelical outlet, faced scrutiny for publishing content that appeared to deviate from its core audience’s expectations.

A report from Crosswalk.com suggested that the controversy could prompt Christian publications to exercise greater caution during significant liturgical seasons like Holy Week.

The apology and swift revision were seen as steps to restore trust.

However, discussions on platforms like X revealed mixed reactions. Some users praised Christianity Today for its accountability, while others argued that the original article should not have been published.

One trending post on X stated, “Mistakes happen, but this was a big one. Glad they fixed it, but Holy Week isn’t the time for these debates.”