Grace is often defined simply as “God’s unmerited favor.” That definition is true as far as it goes. However, for many readers of Scripture, it creates a tension. If grace is unmerited favor, and Christ is full of grace (John 1:14), does that imply Christ was undeserving? It seems there is no seam by which we can stitch unmerited favor and Christ's perfect holiness together. How can Christ be full of unmerited favor?
That question exposes a seam many of us were never taught to see.
The issue isn’t with Scripture, it is with how narrowly grace is sometimes defined.
Grace Is Not Defined by the Recipient
In Scripture, grace does not originate in human need; it originates in God's character.
God describes Himself as “merciful and gracious” (Exodus 34:6). Grace belongs to who God is before it ever describes what we lack. When John says that Jesus is “full of grace and truth,” he is not saying Jesus needed grace; he is saying that God's gracious character is fully present and active in Him.
Grace is something Christ possesses and dispenses. It is not something He requires.
“From his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace.” (John 1:16)
Grace flows from Christ, not to Christ.
Where “Unmerited Favor” Fits
Scripture does describe grace as unearned, but it is always from the perspective of the recipient.
Paul is clear:
“If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works.” (Romans 11:6)
Grace is unmerited for us because we are undeserving recipients, not because grace itself is defined by unworthiness. Christ, by contrast, is repeatedly described as sinless, faithful, and worthy (Hebrews 4:15; Revelation 5:12).
So the seam is this:
Grace describes God's giving. Unmerited describes our receiving. Once that distinction is made, the tension disappears.
Grace Does More Than Forgive
Scripture also refuses to limit grace to pardon alone. Grace forgives. However, it also acts, empowers, and transforms.
Paul can say: “By the grace of God I am what I am… yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.” (1 Corinthians 15:10).
And again: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” (2 Corinthians 12:9).
Grace does not merely excuse failure; it supplies strength.
This is why grace can be both:
God’s free gift apart from works and
God’s empowering presence that produces obedience.
There is no contradiction: Scripture places empowerment after gift, not instead of it.
A Fuller Picture of Grace
When Scripture is allowed to speak on its own terms, grace comes into focus:
Grace is God’s freely given favor, flowing from His own character, that restores relationship with Him and actively empowers people to live out what He calls them to do. It is apart from merit, yet producing real transformation.
Christ is full of grace because grace originates in Him.
We receive grace as unmerited favor because we are not its source.
That’s the missing seam; and once it’s seen, the whole cloth holds together.
If the sun and moon are still up there, God’s covenantal bond with Israel is still down here. That’s Jeremiah’s logic, and it frames everything that follows.“As Long as the Sun and Moon Endure”
My aim is to present a thorough Biblical rebuttal to Replacement Theology.
Scripture teaches continuity, not cancellation. The New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31) is explicitly promised to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and God swears by the fixed order of creation that Israel will never cease to be a nation before Him (Jeremiah 31:35-37). The New Testament confirms, not overturns, this: Gentiles are grafted into Israel’s olive tree (Romans 11); Gentiles share Israel’s covenants (Ephesians 2:12-13), and are called to provoke Israel to jealousy, not replace her (Romans 11:11). Misreading a handful of texts to erase Israel does violence to the plain sense of Scripture and, historically, has greased the rails for antisemitism. It has led to pogroms, expulsions, and even a Holocaust.
What follows is a detailed, text-by-text treatment.
1) In Jeremiah 31:31-37, the New Covenant is addressed to the Jewish people, and its guarantee is Cosmic.
Text and Terms
“I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (31:31). Hebrew: berit chadashah… et-beit Yisrael ve’et-beit Yehudah. The recipients are named twice (vv. 31, 33) to prevent sleight of hand. (Something replacement theologians are very good at.)
Cosmic oath (31:35-37): If the sun, moon, and stars ever fail, then Israel will cease. God binds Israel’s endurance to creation itself.
Exegetical Notes
Chadash can mean “new” in quality - renewed in operation. Either way, the covenant is with Israel; its newness is written on hearts (v. 33), not reassigned to a different people.
The legal form resembles Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) covenant oaths that appealed to witnesses. Here God calls creation itself as a witness. The hyperbolic conditions (“if the heavens can be measured…”) show it is impossible for the covenant God made with Israel to be broken.
There is theological force behind this oath. These verses in Jeremiah 31 are the "north star." Any reading of later texts must harmonize with Jeremiah’s double claim: (1) who receives the covenant, and (2) how long Israel remains a people before God. The sun and moon are still shining; therefore, Israel remains.
If a theology “replaces” Israel, it has (by God’s own oath) claimed that the cosmos has collapsed. Or perhaps they think God lied or exaggerated. Whichever it is, the result is that they make God a liar.
2) In Matthew 21:33-46 (esp. v. 43) we see a stewardship judgment, not a Covenant revocation.
The Context and Background of the Parable:
Jesus’ Parable of the Tenants is set inside Israel’s prophetic tradition (compare Isaiah 5:1-7, the Vineyard Song). In that song, Israel is the vineyard and God is its planter.
What changes in the Parable from Isaiah's Vineyard Song?
Owner = God
Vineyard = Israel (unchanged)
Tenants = corrupt leaders (changed)
Servants = prophets
Son = Messiah
When Jesus says, “The kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits” (v. 43), the “you” is the tenant-class (the unfaithful leaders) not “Israel” as a nation. The vineyard is not bulldozed; only the management changes.
How this fits in the Canon:
In Matthew 23:39, Jesus expects a future Jewish confession: “You will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes…’” The “until” presupposes Israel’s ongoing identity and ultimate repentance. Revoking the vineyard would make this nonsensical. And, again, it would make God a liar or a God who doesn't know what He's talking about - in other words, a God who cannot be trusted.
Matthew 21:43 moves stewardship to faithful hands (initially Jewish apostles!). It does not move election to a different people.
3) Galatians 3:28-29 is equal access in Christ. It is not an erasure of Israel.
“Neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.”
Paul is addressing soteriological status, not abolishing created/covenantal distinctions. He also says “neither male nor female,” but sexual differentiation plainly endures. (Unless you belong to a group who can't define what a woman is.)
The argument is Abrahamic: Gentiles share blessing with Abraham’s family through the Messiah (compare Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8). Inclusion ≠ dispossession.
Galatians 3 is about the access of all to salvation; it does not nullify God’s national promises to Israel.
4) Galatians 6:16, the question is who is “the Israel of God”?
“Peace and mercy be upon all who walk by this rule, and upon the Israel of God.” Greek: kai epi ton Israēl tou Theou. The most natural reading takes kai as conjunctive, distinguishing two groups: (1) all who follow this rule (Gentile believers), and (2) the Israel of God (believing Jews).
An important point to consider:
Paul never uses “Israel” to mean “Church” anywhere else. In every other occurrence (70+), “Israel” refers to the Jewish people.
In Galatians (ground zero for the Judaizer controversy) Paul is eager to honor Jewish believers who keep the truth of the gospel, not linguistically erase them.
The “Israel of God” most coherently refers to Jewish believers; it does not redefine “Israel” as the multi-ethnic Church.
5) In Ephesians 2:11-22, the wall being removed is enmity, not the covenants.
Gentiles were once “strangers to the covenants (plural) of promise” (v. 12) but are now “brought near by the blood of Christ” (v. 13). Christ “has broken down the dividing wall of hostility” (v. 14) to create “one new man” (v. 15).
The “wall” is hostility, which is embodied in sin. It is not the Abrahamic/Davidic promises themselves.
“Brought near” to the covenants presupposes those covenants still exist. Gentiles gain access; they don’t cause the covenants to expire.
“One new man” describes reconciled corporate life in Messiah. It does not erase the category “Jew” (Paul still calls himself an Israelite in Romans 11:1) or “Gentile” (Romans 11:13).
Ephesians 2 is about reconciliation to Israel’s God and Israel’s covenants, not replacement of Israel by Gentiles.
6) Romans 9:6 - 8 : Inner Faithfulness Within Ongoing National Election
“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel… it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise.”
How this is misused: Supersessionists claim “true Israel” = Church; therefore, ethnic Israel is theologically irrelevant.
Paul’s actual argument in Romans 9 distinguishes between unbelieving and believing within Israel (a “remnant” concept long present in the prophets). The letter does not stop there: Romans 11 returns to Israel’s national future: “all Israel will be saved” (11:26), the nation remains “beloved… for the sake of the patriarchs,” and “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:28-29).
Romans 9 handles the problem of unbelief within Israel; Romans 11 guarantees Israel’s ultimate restoration. The nation is not replaced.
7) In Romans 11, the Olive Tree speaks of grafting in, not uprooting.
Consider the metaphor in full:
Root = patriarchal covenants (Abrahamic/Davidic)
Natural branches = Israel (some broken off temporarily because of unbelief)
Wild branches = Gentiles (grafted in among the natural branches)
Key Lines:
“Do not be arrogant toward the branches” (11:18).
“God has the power to graft them in again” (11:23).
“A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved” (11:25-26).
“As regards election they are beloved… the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (11:28-29).
If Gentiles are warned against arrogance toward Israel, any theology that erases Israel is precisely what Paul forbids. The apostolic posture is gratitude and hope, not triumphalism.
Answer to “the Church is the new Israel”: Paul’s image makes this impossible. The Church is wild branches in Israel’s tree, not a new tree.
8) In 1 Peter 2:9-10, we see the sharing of titles, not the stealing of identity.
“A chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation…”
Peter quotes Israel’s vocation from Exodus 19:5-6 and Isaiah 43. His point: in Messiah, believers (from Israel and the nations) now participate in Israel’s priestly calling to the world.
Participation is not expropriation.
Peter never says, “Therefore, Israel is no longer Israel.”
The NT continuously preserves Jewish identity (e.g., thousands of Jews in Acts 21:20 who believe in Jesus and are zealous for the Law).
1 Peter includes Gentiles in Israel’s priestly mission; it does not annul Israel’s peoplehood.
9) Hebrews 8:6-13 = a “Better Covenant.” It ≠ “Israel Abolished.”
Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31 verbatim: the New Covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.
“Obsolete” (8:13) refers to the Levitical system and its temple-mediated administration, not to Israel’s existence or to the Abrahamic/Davidic promises.
The author’s whole argument depends on Jeremiah 31; using it to erase Israel would self-destruct the passage.
Hebrews says the mode of mediation changes in Messiah; it does not say the people promised the covenant disappear.
10) Revelation 2:9 & 3:9 - “Synagogue of Satan”: = False Claimants in Local Conflict.
“I know the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”
The phrase targets claimants proved false by their opposition to Messiah’s people (compare Romans 2:28-29’s inward/outward Jew contrast).
The letters address specific churches (Smyrna, Philadelphia) under local pressure, including denunciations to Roman authorities.
Revelation elsewhere preserves Israel’s symbolic integrity (12 tribes, Rev 7; 21’s gates named for the tribes).
This is not an ethnic slur; it is a moral and spiritual indictment of persecutors in particular cities. It cannot be universalized to cancel Israel.
11) Matthew 23, Jesus’ Woes: They are prophetic fire against hypocrisy, not a charter for replacement.
Jesus pronounces seven woes on scribes and Pharisees: shutting the kingdom, devouring widows’ houses, straining gnats and swallowing camels, cleansing the outside of the cup while leaving the inside filthy, whitewashed tombs, and honoring prophets while perpetuating their fathers’ murders.
Why This Matters:
Jesus stands with the prophetic tradition: God judges corrupt leadership to rescue His people.
The woes do not dissolve Israel; they purify her. That’s why the chapter ends in grief and hope for Jerusalem (23:37-39), not cancellation.
Application: Use Jesus’ sharpest language to unmask hypocrisy, not to justify erasing the people He came to shepherd.
12) Paul’s Ferocity in Defense of the Gospel (Galatians/Philippians/Corinthians)
Galatians 5:1-12
“If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you” (v. 2).
“I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves” (v. 12).
Paul targets Judaizers who add boundary-markers as salvific requirements. He is not cursing Israel; he is cursing a false gospel.
Galatians 2:11-14
Paul publicly opposes Peter when fear of “the circumcision party” compromises table-fellowship. Compromise endangers truth; Paul refuses it.
Philippians 3:2-3
“Beware of the dogs, the evildoers, the mutilation.” The real “circumcision” is Spirit-wrought worship. Again: Paul attacks legalistic perversion, not Jewish identity.
2 Corinthians 11 - 13
“False apostles… disguising themselves.” He will wield discipline if needed. The tone is fierce because the stakes are eternal.
Takeaway: Apostolic sharpness belongs against false gospels (including any teaching that dehumanizes Jews or disfigures God’s covenants) not against the people God calls “beloved.”
13) Historical Trajectory: How Misreadings Fed Antisemitism
Early drift: Post-apostolic writers (e.g., Justin Martyr, later Augustine) increasingly spoke of the Church as “true Israel.”
Medieval and modern fruit: Social and theological contempt for Jews grew, at times exploding into persecution.
Reformation tensions: While restoring Scripture’s authority, some reformers carried supersessionist assumptions forward.
Biblical corrective: Returning to Jeremiah 31 and Romans 11 re-centers the canon on God’s fidelity to Israel.
Moral clarity: Any theology that fantasizes about a “second Holocaust” is not Christian correction but satanic hatred. It must be named and rejected.
14) Summary
Jeremiah 31. The New Covenant belongs to Israel and Judah; God swears by sun and moon that Israel endures.
The vineyard logic. Matthew 21 shifts stewardship from corrupt tenants; it does not uproot the vineyard.
Romans 11. Grafting > replacing; arrogance toward Israel is forbidden; the calling is irrevocable.
“One new man.” Ephesians 2 reconciles peoples into Israel’s covenants; it doesn’t erase Israel.
“Israel of God.” It honors Jewish believers; it doesn’t rename the Church “Israel.”
“Synagogue of Satan” = local persecutors/false claimants, not a blanket on Jews.
Jesus and Paul confront hypocrisy and false gospels - never God’s covenant with Israel.
Conclusion: God’s Character Is on Trial
If God can abandon the people to whom He swore by the cosmos, on what basis do Gentiles trust His promise in Christ? The integrity of the gospel is at stake in the integrity of God’s covenants. The Church’s calling is not to take Israel’s place but to take our place among Abraham’s family - by grace - until Israel’s fullness comes and the world sees what Paul foresaw:
“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!” (Romans 11:33)
On Jeremiah 31 “God names Israel and Judah twice as New Covenant partners (Jer 31:31, 33) and swears by the sun and moon (31:35-37) that Israel endures. The lights still shine; Israel still stands. If your theology says otherwise, it contradicts God’s oath.”
On Matthew 21:43 “Read the whole parable: the vineyard (Israel) remains; only the tenants (corrupt leaders) are replaced. Stewardship shifts; election does not.”
On Galatians 3:28 “Equal access to salvation does not erase Israel any more than it erases male/female. Paul is leveling the ground at the cross, not canceling covenants.”
On Galatians 6:16 “The Greek most naturally reads two groups: ‘all who walk by this rule’ and ‘the Israel of God’ (Jewish believers). Paul never uses ‘Israel’ to mean ‘Church.’”
On Ephesians 2 “Gentiles are brought near to Israel’s covenants (plural). The wall removed is hostility, not the Abrahamic/Davidic promises.”
On Romans 9 - 11 “Romans 9 addresses unbelief within Israel; Romans 11 guarantees national restoration: grafting back in, ‘all Israel will be saved,’ irrevocable calling.”
On Revelation 2:9; 3:9 “The phrase targets false claimants/persecutors in specific cities, not Jews as a people. Revelation elsewhere preserves 12-tribe symbolism.”
On a snowy Christmas Eve in 1965, Max and his sister Julia set out with
sleds, ready for adventure. But a sudden blizzard swallows the world in
white, leaving them lost and afraid - until a mysterious old man rescues
them and leads them to a glowing church in the storm.
The room frightened Jacob. It was at the end of a long corridor. There were countless entrances along the stretch of dark hallway, but once the room was entered, there was only one way out. Inside, there was no visible doorknob, handle, or bolt. Lucian had to let him out again. Jacob always suspected there was a secret exit in the floor, but he feared what might happen if it were ever opened. He envisioned a long descent into darkness if that were the case.
Lucian, the casino’s manager, sat behind a large polished desk. But there was also a stranger standing in the corner, and judging by Lucian’s hostile glances in his direction, he didn’t appear to be welcome. Jacob wondered how the man had come to be here. Did he owe the casino too?
“Sit down, Jacob.” It was a command, not an invitation.
Jacob obeyed quickly. He would never dare defiance. He had tried that once and had been carried out on a stretcher as a result.
“You know our deal. Today is your last day to pay back what you owe me without additional penalties - and you haven’t paid me.”
“I've sold everything, Lucian. My home. My car. I cashed out my life savings, but it’s still not enough. I can give you what I have.” His voice sounded weak and pathetic. If only he could turn back time. Moving to this wretched place had been the biggest mistake of his life. He was ashamed of what he had become. He once had a life. A family. A home. All of it was gone now. And he was the only one to blame.
The stranger crossed the room and stopped beside him. “I will pay your debt, Jacob.”
Jacob stared at the man in numb disbelief, barely able to process what he had just heard.
Lucian’s explosive laugh shocked him. “Not that lie again! He’s always promising to pay everyone’s debt, and he never does. If you fall for this, I won’t be responsible for what happens, but I promise you’ll owe me twice as much as before if you believe him over me.”
Jacob looked at the stranger, then back at Lucian.
“Are you willing to risk that?” Lucian leaned across the desk, his eyes dark and menacing. “Well, are you? Twice as much, Jacob. Twice as much. I won't warn you again!”
“You won’t owe him anything, but there will still be a price,” the stranger’s voice was soft and reassuring. “But it won't be the kind of price you owe now.”
Lucian stood abruptly, knocking his chair backward with such force that it crashed into the wall. “If you listen to him, you’re an even bigger fool than I thought! Accept that offer and you’ll just trade one master for another - one debt for a new one.”
The stranger ignored Lucian and sat next to Jacob. There was something different about him. In his presence, Jacob could ignore Lucian for the first time. Jacob wasn’t sure why, but he trusted this stranger.
“My price is not like his. All I ask is that you trust me. I want you to stop destroying yourself.”
Jacob had tried countless times, but he always failed. “I want to stop destroying myself, but I don’t know how.”
The stranger rested a reassuring hand on his.
“I can help you to do what you can't do on your own.”
Lucian was raging, but when Jacob glanced at him, his tormentor seemed smaller and less frightening. Everything about him was diminished.
“I believe you,” Jacob whispered. “I believe you really will pay my debt.”
“Jacob, I already have.” With that, a new door opened - one he had never seen before. And beyond it lay hope.
The original video is available here and at YouTube:
I have remade this with different voice overs. There is only one image throughout in the remake, and I have removed sound effects. If you watch both, I'd be interested in knowing which one you prefer. Perhaps neither will be your "cup of tea."
Here is the video's description at YouTube:
A Parable of the Christian Gospel tells the story of Jacob, trapped by
debt and despair, facing an impossible choice. In a dark room under the
watchful eye of Lucian, the casino’s ruthless manager, Jacob believes
his life is beyond redemption - until a stranger offers to pay his debt
in full.
This modern parable illustrates the heart of the Christian gospel:
though we are bound by sin and powerless to save ourselves, Christ steps
in to pay the price and lead us into freedom, light, and hope.
Narration: Multiple voices bring the parable to life.
Artwork: Custom Baroque-style illustrations by ChatGPT highlight the
contrast between darkness and redemption.
Video created with Open Shot Video Editor with narration from
ElevenLabs.
Story and editing by DL Kennedy.
If this story spoke to you, please like, share, and subscribe at YouTube for more
original parables and reflections on faith.
Explore more on my YouTube channel at:
The painting had changed again during the night. The
self-portrait was nearly erased, only a faint outline remained, barely visible
through the stains and smudges. A new image was gradually forming where the
original had been - a grotesque caricature of the artist.
Yotsero didn’t turn at the sound of knocking. He already knew who stood
outside.
“Come in.”
His guest entered the studio. Still, the artist did not move from his spot. He
merely raised a hand and motioned for Giulio to join him at the canvas. Both
men stared at the image, each lost in thought.
“You said it keeps changing day by day?”
“Yes. It’s happened countless times now.”
His guest looked incredulous. “Are you sleep-painting, my friend?”
Yotsero might have taken offense at the suggestion, but he did not. He simply
shook his head. The noise of his beard rubbing against the rough fabric of his
shirt made a faint scratching sound, loud in the silence.
Giulio knew the room was always under observation and that formidable guards
protected the property and their beloved master. “Nothing unusual has been
seen, I take it.”
“Nothing. No one enters. No one leaves. It’s the painting itself. It is
remaking itself into its own idea of me.”
“The creation creating the creator instead of the other way around?”
“It happens all the time, Giulio.”
“What will you do? You must do something.”
“I will give it every opportunity, of course, but if it continues, I’ll have to
destroy this piece and create a new one.”
Giulio turned to go. “You said this happens all the time?”
“Oh yes, it has been going on for a very long time. You’d be surprised at how
often the painting thinks it knows more than the painter.”
“Rather arrogant, I’d say. I had no idea your handiwork was so rebellious.”
“Yes. That’s why there is so much pain and suffering in many of these pieces.”
Giulio studied the paintings. Each one seemed darker than the last.
“I’ve given them every opportunity to correct themselves, but my patience is
running out. I want them to trust me. I know what I’m creating, but most of
them believe they can do a better job than me.”
“It’s very foolish for the painting to believe it can argue with the painter.”
“Yes, my friend. It is foolish indeed. Still, it happens every day. And I get
blamed for the chaos my paintings create.”
The Shroud of Turin is a
large piece of ancient linen, about 14 feet long and 3½ feet wide. On it is a
faint image of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns,
crucified, and pierced in the side. The bloodstains and wounds match exactly
what the Gospels describe about Jesus’ crucifixion.
What makes the Shroud unique is that
the image is not painted or drawn - it’s only on the very top fibers of
the cloth, like a photograph burned in by light. When the cloth is viewed as a
photographic negative, the image suddenly becomes clear and detailed, even
showing 3D information.
In 1978, STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project), with a team of about 30 American scientists from various disciplines (physics, chemistry, engineering, medicine, and more) traveled to Turin, Italy, to study the Shroud of Turin directly for the first time with modern scientific equipment.
Over a five-day period in October 1978, they performed non-destructive tests -including photography, spectroscopy, X-ray fluorescence, and microscopic analysis - to determine how the image on the cloth was formed. STURP concluded that the image was not painted, dyed, scorched, or photographically produced, but they could not explain how it was created. Their findings remain a cornerstone of Shroud research.
In 1988, the Shroud was Carbon-14 tested, and three different labs concluded in was a 14th-century hoax.
The Shroud has been studied for over 100 years, and no one has been able to explain how the image could have been made by a 14th-century forger. It requires technologies that don’t exist even in our day, and certainly did not exist in the 14th Century. Some tests date it back to the time of Christ, and there is a strong historical trail that links it to early Christian communities.
For me, it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus, and it is even a kind of photographic record of His resurrection. The Carbon-14 dating has been effectively debunked for many reasons.
The late Edward T. Hall, who was head of the Oxford University lab (one of the three labs that dated the Shroud in 1988), famously claimed, “Someone just got a piece of linen, faked it up, and flogged it.” It appears that science has proven that to be one of the most ridiculous claims ever made. And, apparently, David Rolfe considers it ridiculous too.
At the end of his newest documentary, Who Can He Be?, filmmaker David Rolfe challenged Oxford University, or anyone, to recreate the Shroud of Turin image using only medieval tools and techniques from the 14th century. He has backed up the challenge with the offer of one million dollars to anyone who can succeed. Should be an easy task if all you have to do is get a piece of linen, fake it up, and flog it. However, the offer, which was made in 2022, has gone unclaimed.
Scientific Dating Evidence
In 2013, Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta published a book presenting the results of chemical and mechanical tests that strongly support a 1st-century origin for the Shroud. According to an article by Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider, the study involved three new tests (two chemical and one mechanical):
"The first two were carried out with an FT-IR system (Fourier Transform InfraRed Spectroscopy), one using infra-red light and the other using Raman spectroscopy. The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire. The machine used to examine the Shroud's fibres and test traction, allowed researchers to examine tiny fibres alongside about twenty samples of cloth dated between 3000 BC and 2000 AD.
"Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years.
"The tests were carried out using tiny fibres of material extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana who passed away in 2008 but had participated in the 1988 research project and gave the material to Fanti through the cultural institute Fondazione 3M."
In 2011, another scientific study on the Shroud concluded that the image was created by a flash of supernatural light, stating: "It couldn’t be a medieval forgery." More recently, wide-angle X-ray scattering studies have provided further insights into the Shroud’s physical properties. Based on this analysis, researchers assigned the fabric a date range of between 300 B.C. and A.D. 400, placing it squarely within the historical window of Jesus’s crucifixion.
Image Formation Studies
In Who Can He Be?, Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro detailed what it would take to recreate the image on the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Di Lazzaro and his team were able to create a small image using pulses of ultraviolet light that replicate the superficiality of the Shroud image. They determined that:
"The ultraviolet light necessary to create this image exceeds the maximum power released by all ultraviolet light sources available today. It would require a pulse having a duration shorter than forty-billionth of a second and an intensity of the order of several billion watts to discolor the cloth without penetrating and destroying it."
I have no doubt that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, and in less than forty-billionths of a second, it recorded the most important event in history: the resurrection of the Son of God. Nothing else explains that image.
Habermas and Forensic Insights
New Testament scholar and philosopher, Dr. Gary Habermas, is best known for his apologetic work and the development of the "minimal facts" approach to evidence the resurrection of Jesus. Dr. Gary Habermas spoke about the Shroud in his course, The Resurrection of Jesus at Online Christian Courses. He discussed the Shroud a few times during the course, and in Session 19 he recounted something a Yale professor (who had been on the Shroud team) said. He told Dr. Habermas:
"The image on the shroud appears to be the image we would see if, in every pore of the skin, we had a micro laser, and it was scorching the cloth simultaneously - from the inside out." Then he paused and said, "If the kind of energy it takes to create the shroud image were converted to nuclear energy, it would have leveled the city of Jerusalem."
Habermas also talked about how he will be giving a lecture on the Shroud, and he will be showing slides and someone will say, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, go back to that slide!" And we go back and look, and this is a chiropractor or medical doctor or dentist (he says it's happened with all of them), and they'll say, "I read X-rays for a living. Those are teeth!" And they'll explain that the Shroud is being backlit, and it's bringing the teeth up.
Habermas used to say in his early lectures that scientists didn't know if the radiation was something coming into the body or something going out, and these medical doctors and dentists and chiropractors would all say, "I can answer that question for you. That’s coming out." They know because it's bringing the image of the teeth through the lips and through the beard; so it has to be coming out of the body. The body in the Shroud is dead, but something incredible is happening with that body. Dead bodies do not irradiate cloth, but this one did.
Coin and Gold Dust Evidence
In recent days the Daily Mail has been re-circulating an older line of evidence: a bronze follis coin minted in Constantinople between AD 969–976. The coin bears a striking resemblance to the facial image on the Shroud of Turin. Historian Justin Robinson argues the engraver copied directly from the Shroud when it was publicly displayed in Constantinople. Features such as the forked beard, the parallel strands of hair on the left side, and even a subtle facial "cross" shape match the Shroud with uncanny precision. Inscriptions on the coin read "God with us" and "Jesus Christ, King of Kings," reinforcing not only its sacred purpose but who the engraver believed he was depicting.
Robinson also highlights problems with the 1988 carbon dating, noting the tested corner was a repaired area heavily handled and exposed to fire damage, making it unreliable. In other words, they tested a complex patch job, one that was accomplished with a technique known as "Invisible Reweaving."
More significantly and more recently, Italian researchers Giulio Fanti and Claudio Furlan analyzed microscopic gold particles found on the Shroud. These particles chemically match Byzantine coins minted between the 7th and 12th centuries. Unlike the coin-image debate, this is not about interpreting patterns but about hard, physical residue. The presence of Byzantine gold dust points strongly to the Shroud's presence in Constantinople centuries before the 14th-century date suggested by Carbon-14 dating.
Unique Features Skeptics Can’t Explain
Even skeptics have a hard time with the Shroud, pointing out that there are specific key characteristics of the image that any theory must account for:
1. The image is a photographic negative. 2. There is a 3D property to the image (the further away a part of the body was from the cloth the fainter that part appears). 3. The image is visible only in the very upper fibres of the cloth (it does not go all the way through to the back of the cloth). 4. When standing close to the cloth the image is not visible. It is only visible when standing a few feet away. 5. The blood flows on the cloth have been shown to be 100% anatomically correct based on modern physiology. 6. There are no pigments or dyes used to create the image. 7. The blood is human and contains extractable DNA samples.
It is very hard to put together a theory that can satisfy all of those items.
In this short space we have seen some of the best modern research: We have Fanti’s chemical/mechanical dating, Di Lazzaro’s ultraviolet light experiments, Habermas’s theological and anecdotal insights, and the medical/dental observations. These are multiple, independent lines of evidence that the Shroud in not medieval, and it bears witness to something beyond natural explanation.
All three of these independent tests put the Shroud between 300 BC and AD 400, which is the exactly right window of time. That by itself undermines the C-14 test.
The X-ray scattering studies confirm earlier studies. We have consistent results that fall in the 1st-century range.
When different sciences converge, it’s hard to dismiss.
The superficial nature is significant. Only the top fibrils were affected, and there is no penetration into the threads. That is not something a medieval artist could have achieved.
Then there are the energy requirements. Di Lazzaro’s team makes clear it would take physics we still don’t have today. It would take extreme, instantaneous UV radiation, and that is well beyond any natural or human-made process.
Then there is the negative image and the 3-D encoding. That is unique in all of history. A “forger” in the 13th century couldn’t have even imagined these properties much less accomplished them.
The forensic evidence is another strong factor. Modern physiology confirms anatomical accuracy of the blood clotting, serum separation, and placement - including post-mortem blood flows.
The human DNA that has been extracted is consistent with Middle Eastern origin.
Multiple tests, including STURP’s original findings, show there are no pigments or dyes on the cloth. The image wasn’t painted, dyed, or burned by fire.
Pollen and dust trace the cloth’s path from Jerusalem to Edessa to Constantinople to France and then to Italy. We have a logical historical trail.
The coin comparisons may not be “new,” but when paired with the physical gold-dust evidence, they reinforce the same conclusion: the Shroud was venerated in the Byzantine world long before the 13th - 14th century. Far from being a medieval forgery, these lines of evidence strengthen the case for the Shroud's authenticity.
The Shroud has had a powerful cross-cultural impact. Even people outside of Christianity have trouble explaining the unique features of the cloth by naturalistic means. That alone makes the Shroud a “problem” for materialism.
The resurrection is the only coherent explanation for the existence of the Shroud. Yes, Doubting Thomas, in less than forty-billionths of a second, it recorded the most important event in history: the resurrection of the Son of God. It is a theological truth. The Shroud isn’t just evidence of death, it's evidence of a transformation. As Dr. Habermas relayed from that Yale professor: it looks like energy emanated from inside the body, enough to scorch linen but not destroy it. That is consistent with resurrection - and nothing else.
The Sudarium of Oviedo
But wait, there's more. There is the link between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo. The Sudarium has a continuous history in Spain since the 7th century. If it covered the body of Jesus, and it is linked to the Shroud, then the C-14 dating is even further undermined.
Research strongly suggests the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo once covered the same body: namely, Jesus of Nazareth. Scholars like Mark Guscin have studied the Sudarium extensively, and here are the key points of overlap:
Same rare blood type: Both cloths contain type AB blood, rare worldwide but more common in Jewish populations. That is consistent with a 1st-century Middle Eastern origin.
Matching bloodstains: Flow patterns and stain locations correspond - forehead wounds, nose and mouth stains, and blood on the back of the head all align between the two cloths. Both also show pleural fluid, typical of crucifixion victims who die of asphyxiation.
Forensic agreement: Overlays of digital analysis confirm that the stains on the Sudarium map exactly to the wounds visible on the Shroud's face and head.
Pollen evidence: Both contain pollen types that are native to the Jerusalem region, strengthening the case for their shared origin.
History: Again, the Sudarium has a continuous record in Spain since at least the 7th century, while the Shroud's early history is less clear but linked to the same part of the world.
The Deeper Meaning
Here is the deeper meaning: The physical evidence underscores what Scripture already tells us: Jesus truly suffered. The nails driven through His wrists crushed the medial nerves, pulling His thumbs inward, as we see on the Shroud image. His scourged back was dragged across rough wood as He pushed against the nails in His feet to strain for another breath. His shoulders were out of joint. His lungs were filled with fluid. Crucifixion was designed for maximum agony and is the origin of the word excruciating.
But Jesus endured more than physical torment. He carried the sins of the world. My sins. Your sins.
The good news is He didn't stay on the cross or in the tomb. He rose, appeared to His disciples, and promised to return. Until that day, we are called to occupy. We are called to live faithfully and share the gospel with a world in need.
The Shroud and the Sudarium are not just relics. They are silent witnesses that point to the greatest reality of all: He is risen. He is risen indeed.
