The internet, it seems, will argue about anything. Is the dress black and blue or white and gold? Is it “Yanny” or “Laurel”? Is cereal a soup? Friendships will be broken and new alliances forged by your answer.
So when outrage broke out on social media over the suggestion that Jesus may have been held to the cross with ropes instead of nails, some Christians rolled their eyes and scrolled right on past. Others dismissed it as curious, but unimportant. Just another example of people being willing to argue about literally anything! However, in this instance, the outrage wasn’t over an irrelevant detail, but about a foundational question: what do we mean when we say the Bible is “inspired?”
The Background
The original article, “Was Jesus Crucified with Nails?”, appeared in Christianity Today on Apr. 14, 2025, just six days before Easter. The author, Daniel Stillman, was reporting on an idiosyncratic position held by another Biblical scholar, Jeffrey P. Arroyo García, who recently published an article exploring this topic in the spring edition of the Biblical Archeology Review.
What got readers riled was not that García questioned a long-held tradition, but rather that his question leaned toward an unorthodox view of Biblical inspiration called limited inspiration – and implicated Christianity Today as sympathetic to this view by association.
What Is Limited Inspiration?
Limited inspiration is the idea that parts of the Bible (such as those dealing with faith and morality) are inspired by God, but some portions are not. Historical and scientific details are often deemed uninspired – a product of the writer’s knowledge, cultural understanding, or imperfect memory of the event – instead of from a God who cannot lie or err. Christians who hold this view, including García, may respect the Bible and consider it authoritative, but do not consider it entirely accurate. Exactly which parts are inaccurate is highly subjective.
This view contrasts with the orthodox view of verbal plenary inspiration, which holds that every word of the original manuscripts was inspired by God and was written down wholly without error, including the details of historical or scientific events. This is not to say that the writers played no active role, since their distinct styles, vocabularies, and even personal opinions and greetings may be found throughout their works, but rather that God superintended the process so that every word was accurate and conveyed precisely the idea he wanted.
García makes three observations that point toward a limited inspiration view of Scripture.
- He recognizes that Thomas insists on seeing the “nail prints” in Jesus’ hands before he will believe he has risen, but doesn’t find this evidence completely convincing in light of the historical evidence suggesting rope binding was more common at the time. If he believed in plenary inspiration, he would also affirm the recounting of the story to be accurate in all its details, which would lead most people to assume that Thomas had conclusive evidence that his master had been nailed through the hands.
- He notes that Jesus never said the word “nail.” This detail is important because limited inspiration usually considers the words of Jesus to be divinely inspired, and therefore more reliable than the words of other characters. Only in this view would Jesus saying the word be more reliable than Thomas saying it in the same story.
- He notes that many scholars think that the book of John was written later – perhaps after crucifixion with nails had become more common. This holds twofold importance. First, the idea that it was written later implies that García believes enough time may have elapsed for the story to be inaccurately remembered or to have evolved into legend with the retelling instead of concluding that it was divinely inspired in every detail. Secondly, this idea also signifies that he does not believe that the apostle John necessarily wrote the content, which contradicts Jn 21:24. Both of these things are consistent with the limited inspiration, not the plenary inspiration view.
Why the Outrage?
In García’s (and Stillman’s) defense, he clearly states in the article that he wanted to explore this issue because it’s good for us to question tradition, scrutinize history, and get back to the Bible. “The most important thing for me,” he said, “is that we read the text.” These are all worthy goals that Christians of various convictions can support. So why the outrage?
Because how we interpret Scripture matters. It is central to our faith. If we believe only some parts of the Bible are inspired while others contain error or cultural bias, our exegesis will be much different than if we believe that every word is God-breathed. Not to mention the problems that arise when you try to figure out exactly which parts are inspired!
If we believe only some parts of the Bible are inspired while others contain error or cultural bias, our exegesis will be much different than if we believe that every word is God-breathed.
However, the most important reason is that the Bible makes certain claims about itself. If the Bible is unreliable in its claims about what it is and how it came to be, there is arguably no good reason to consider any of it authoritative. It has proven itself to be an unreliable source.
What Does The Bible Say About Itself?
The Bible makes many direct and indirect claims about its inspiration. Some of the best known are from 2 Timothy, 2 Peter, and Matthew:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)
No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21)
Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:18)
Jesus considered the entire Old Testament (“The Law”) to be inspired and often considered a single phrase, word, or even a word tense as adequate support for an entire doctrinal stance. For instance, he supported the doctrine of the resurrection by referencing a single verb tense:
But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:31)
He supported his stance on the sanctity of marriage by quoting Adam in Genesis 2:23-24, two verses that many proponents of limited inspiration would consider part of a creation myth and not historically reliable.
“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mark 10:5-9)
He supported his own divinity by appealing to David’s poetry in Ps. 110, underscoring the reality that even that most creative and “human” of genres was not the result of David working alone, but of the Spirit moving in him.
He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I put your enemies
under your feet.”’If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?”
(Matthew 22:43-45)
As for the New Testament, Jesus’s teachings are authoritative res ipsa loquitur. But the apostles also considered their own teachings to be “Scripture” and placed themselves and their fellow apostles on par with the Old Testament prophets.
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. (2 Peter 3:2)
For all these reasons and many more, you can make a logically coherent argument for accepting or rejecting the authority of Scripture holistically; but partial inspiration always involves a somewhat arbitrary decision based on one’s worldview. This worldview becomes one’s practical authority and the de facto standard for discerning truth and error.
Do You Care About the Nails?
Whether you’re a person who loves to engage in the latest online debate or someone who would prefer to scroll past, this is one debate that’s actually worthwhile to consider.
- How do you view the authority of the Bible in your own life?
- If you do believe all Scripture is God-breathed and authoritative, do you know why?
- Can you identify works like the article in Christianity Today where another view is at work?
- If so, can you engage with such a view in an informed but constructive way?
- Is there anything in life other than Scripture that functions as your practical authority?
All Scripture is God-breathed (2 Tim 3:16)